5361 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA.  SAN  DIEGO 


3  1822  02669  0941 


A 
A 

0 
0 

1 

4 
6 
6 

in 

DUTHERN  REGIONAL 

LIBR 

1 
6 

7 

2 

ARYF 

ACI 

LITY 

SAN  otteo 


'J 


«r 


UNlVc.  .11     r  W.Li.  ..M.,',,  o-J  DIEGo 
LA  JOLLA,  CALIFORNIA 

NEUTRAL    RELATIONS 


OP 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  SAN  DIEGO 


mi  III  III  ill  ill  ill  II 


3  1822  02669  0941 


iiiiiiii 


ENGLAND 


AND 


THE    UNITED     STATES. 


By   CHARLES   G.    LORING. 


BOSTON: 

W  T  I.  T.  T  A  M     V.    S  r  E  N  C  E  R, 

134,   Washington   Stijeet. 
18G3. 


BOSTON: 

PRINTED    BY    JOHN    WILSON    AND    SON, 
5,  Water  Strekt. 


6  3^1 

LI 


PREFATOllY     NOTE. 


The  following  articles,  which  appeared  in  the  "  Bos- 
ton Daily  Advertiser"  at  the  times  of  their  respective 
dates,  originated  in  an  nndertaking  to  reply  to  a  letter 
from  a  highly  respected  correspondent  m  Ireland,  in 
which  he  had  remarked,  that,  in  complaining  of  alleged 
breaches  of  neutrality  on  the  part  of  England  in  reference 
to  the  Rebel  ships-of-war,  the  present  writer  had  done  less 
than  justice  to  "  the  Government  and  a  very  considerable 
section  of  her  people,  who,  without  any  sympathy  for  the 
North,  or  indeed  any  just  appreciation  of  the  cause  which 
is  at  stake,  do  honestly  desire  on  legal  grounds,  and  with 
a  view  to  the  honor  of  the  country,  to  preserve  a  strict 
neutrality ;  "  and  had  remarked,  further,  that  he  believed, 
that  "  in  general,  among  the  professional  classes,  this 
mode  of  viewing  the  question  is  the  prevailmg  one." 

It  was  soon  found,  however,  that  an  effort  to  do  any 
justice  to  the  subject  would  far  transcend  the  bounds  of  a 
letter,  or  indeed  of  ordinary  correspondence.  And  it 
being  a  subject  of  great  present  interest  and  importance, 
and  the  investigation  of  it  havmg  necessarily  led  to  much 
more  extensive  inquiry  and  reflection  than  had  been  anti- 
cipated, or  than  any  one  would  probably  give  to  it  without 
an  especial  purpose,  it  was  thought  that  the  results  of  the 
investigation,  however  imperfect,  or  however  unimportant 


IV  PREFATORY    NOTE, 

as  adding  any  thing  to  the  stock  of  knowledge,  might  at 
least  attract  the  attention  of  others  more  competent  for 
the  discussion,  and  thus  aid  in  the  dissemination  of  useful 
intelligence.  With  this  vj^ew,  these  results  were  offered 
to  the  Editors  of  the  "Advertiser." 

While  they  were  in  the  course  of  publication,  several 
persons,  whose  opmions  are  entitled  to  high  consideration, 
expressed  the  wish  that  the  Numbers  should  be  printed 
together  in  pamphlet  form  for  more  convenient  perusal 
and  dissemination ;  and  it  is  in  compliance  with  that 
suggestion  that  they  are  now  thus  presented  to  the  public. 

As  these  papers  do  not  purport  to  be  a  systematic  or 
exhaustive  treatise  on  the  subject,  but  merely  to  exhibit 
the  results  of  the  inquiries  and  reflections  of  one,  who, 
amid  many  distracting  engagements,  was  originally  m- 
duced  to  enter  upon  them  simply  for  the  purpose  of  a 
friendly  correspondence  ;  —  as  they  were  written  at  inter- 
vals as  they  were  published,  and  consequently  afforded 
no  opportunity  for  reconstruction  or  change  of  arrange- 
ment ;  —  and  as  their  ephemeral  nature  does  not  call  for 
a  pams-taking  revision  of  them  with  a  view  to  more  sys- 
tematic or  elaborate  treatment,  or  finish  of  style,  —  it  is 
hoped  that  no  further  apology  will  be  thought  needful 
for  defects  which  might  othermse  seem  inexcusable. 

They  appear  in  this  form  almost  precisely  as  they  were 
originally  printed,  with  very  few  verbal  alterations,  and, 
except  one  short  passage,  with  nothing  added  that  was 
not  in  the  manuscript  as  prepared  for  the  "  Advertiser," 
and  omitted  there  for  the  sake  of  brevity.  In  all  quoted 
passages  the  Italicizing  is  by  the  author  of  these  papers 
where  the  contrary  is  not  stated. 

C.  G.  L. 
Boston,  1  October,  1863. 


NEUTRAL     RELATIONS 


ENGLAND   AND   THE   UNITED   STATES. 


I. 

t 

GENERAL    VIEW   OF   THE   SUBJECT, 

There  is  no  subject  of  greater  present  concern  than  the 
position  of  England  in  reference  to  her  relations,  as  a  neutral 
nation,  to  the  United  States ;  and  none,  probably,  soon  to  be- 
come of  more  engrossing  public  thought  and  anxiety.  It  is 
therefore  important  that  we  have  well-defined  and  sound 
opinions  concerning  it,  in  order,  on  the  one  hand,  not  to  be 
misled  by  an  imaginary  sense  of  injury  into  undue  hostility 
towards  her,  which  may  stand  in  the  way  of  a  just  apprecia- 
tion of  her  professed  discharge  of  her  duties  as  a  neutral,  and 
of  continued  peace  with  her  as  a  friendly,  nation  ;  and,  on 
the  other,  to  be  prepared  to  sustain  our  Government  in  its 
dealings  with  her,  if  she  is  justly  chargeable,  as  is  often  al- 
leged, with  a  want  of  substantial  good  faith,  and  a  virtual 
complicity  with  the  rebels  who  are  waging  war  upon  our 
national  life. 

The  following  thoughts  are  thrown  out  with  the  sole  intent 
of  affording  aid  towards  a  right  understanding  of  this  matter ; 
and  whether  they  shall  be  found  acceptable  as  true  exponents 
of  it,  or  lead  to  reply  or  refutation  tending  to  a  more  correct 
and  satisfactory  exposition,  the  purpose  of  their  presentation 
to  the  public  will  be  equally  well  answered.  ' 


2  NEUTEAL    RELATIONS   OF 

The  duties  of  neutrality  are  regulated  by  the  laws  of  na- 
tions ;  and  it  is  only  when  these  are  substantially  violated 
that  any  just  cause  of  complaint  exists. 

But  many  nations,  and  among  them  England  and  the  United 
States,  have  enacted  statutes  termed  Neutrality  Acts,  or 
Foreign  Enlistment  Laws,  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  their 
respective  subjects  to  conform  to  the  laws  of  nations,  and  to 
forbear  from  interfering  in  wars  between  them,  under  various 
pains  and  penalties.  These  enactments,  however,  are  merely 
municipal  laws,  which  foreign  nations  have  no  power  to  en- 
force, nor  to  punish  the  infraction  of;  and  the  breach  of  which, 
in  ordinary  cases,  they  have  no  right  to  complain  of,  unless  ito 
involve  one  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and  then  only  to  that 
extent  and  on  that  exclusive  ground  ;  or  unless  the  fail- 
ure, on  the  part  of  the  neutral,  to  enforce  obedience  to  them, 
indicate  a  substantial  departure  from  that  impartiality  which 
is  of  the  essence  of  neutrality. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  such  foreign  nations  are  concerned, 
these  Neutrality  Acts,  or  Enlistment  Laws,  are  of  imperfect 
obligation.  But,  as  these  laws  are  founded  in  the  comity  of 
nations,  and  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  friendly  relations 
with  each  of  them  while  they  are  at  war  among  themselves, 
and  in  a  sense  of  duty  and  interest,  dictating  the  maintenance 
of  an  impartial  neutrality,  —  and  as  they  are  on  the  side  of 
peace  and  humanity,  in  opposition  to  piratical  greed,  seeking 
gain  in  the  woes  and  misfortunes  of  others,  and  to  voluntary 
injury  to  a  friendly  neighbor,  —  they  certainly  involve  a  high 
moral  obligation,  on  the  part  of  the  government  enacting 
them,  to  see  them  faithfully  enforced.  And  a  failure  so  to  en- 
force them  in  flagrant  cases,  or  connivance  in  their  violation, 
or  obvious  indifference  to  their  execution,  when  manifest 
opportunities  present  themselves,  is  good  cause  of  complaint, 
alienation,  and  resentment;  and  such  failure,  connivance,  or 
indifference,  may,  under  some  circumstances,  justify  an  appeal 
to  arms  in  self-defence,  —  especially  so,  where,  from  the  nature 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  3 

of  the  case  and  the  rehitivc  positions  of  tlie  belligoronts,  the 
benefit  of  such  viohition  is  all  on  the  side  of  one  of  them  to 
the  damage  of  the  other,  and  is  of  great  and  substantial  ad- 
vantage to  the  former,  and  of  grievous  injury  to  the  other. 
In  such  case,  the  omission  to  exercise  existing  means  to 
prevent  the  injury  done  to  the  suflering  nation,  —  where  pre- 
vention could  give  no  just  cause  of  complaint  to  the  other, 
being  a  simple  enforcement  of  the  laws  made  for  the  equal 
protection  of  both,  —  may,  in  reason,  and  in  the  spirit  of  the 
law  of  nations  regulating  neutrality,  be  considered  an  unjust 
departure  from  it,  and  a  virtual  complicity  with  the  enemy. 
And  the  case  becomes  more  aggravated,  when  not  only  a  great 
and  distressing  injury,  which  might  be  prevented,  is  thus 
permitted  against  a  friendly  power,  but  the  nation,  by  which 
it  is  permitted,  itself  becomes  a  great  gainer  by  means  of  it, 
and  so  participates  with  the  other  belligerent  in  the  benefits 
of  this  breach  of  its  own  laws. 

Since  the  above  sentences  were  written,  the  report  of  the 
last  debate  in  the  British  Parliament  on  this  subject  has  been 
received,  in  which  Lord  Palmerston,  if  correctly  reported, 
explicitly  admits  that  ''  the  American  Government  have  a  dis- 
tinct right  to  expect  that  a  neutral  will  enforce  its  municipal 
law,  if  it  be  in  their  favor ;  "  thus  conceding  the  principle 
as  of  even  broader  application  that  that  above  claimed.  This 
is  a  concession  of  no  small  moment  in  reference  to  pre- 
vious debates,  in  which  he  was  understood  fully  to  sustain 
the  Solicitor-General  in  the  position,  that  the  foreign-enlist- 
ment laws  of  a  neutral  nation  were  municipal  laws  only,  in 
the  enforcement  of  which  the  belligerent  had  no  such  in- 
terest as  would  justify  complaint  because  of  the  failure  to 
compel  obedience  to  them ;  which  position  the  preceding 
suggestions  were  intended  to  contest. 

Now,  it  is  a  peculiar  and  most  prominent  fact  in  the 
history  of  the    present    Rebellion,    that    the    rebels   (having 


4  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

neither  ships,  arms,  nor  men  for  naval  warfare,  nor  a  single 
port  where  a  ship  could  be  constructed  and  fitted  out  which  is 
not  strictly  blockaded,  —  and  being  without  a  single  armed 
vessel  of  any  important  force  at  sea,  built,  or  fitted  out,  or 
armed,  or  manned  anywhere  within  their  own  asserted  terri- 
torial or  maritime  jurisdiction,  —  and  having  little  or  no  com- 
merce exposed  to  capture)  have,  nevertheless,  on  the  ocean, 
under  their  flag,  several  large,  heavily-armed  vessels,  which 
were  built,  equipped,  armed,  and  mainly  manned,  by  English- 
men, in  English  ports,  or  under  the  protection  of  the  English 
flag  until  setting  forth  upon  their  piratical  career  for  the 
plunder  and  destruction  of  American  shipping;  —  that  the 
crews  of  these  vessels  have  in'  fact  destroyed  many  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  dollars  by  sinking  and  burning  American  ships, 
having  no  port  into  which  they  dare  attempt  to  carry  them 
as  prizes  for  adjudication ;  —  that  many  more  such  vessels 
are  notoriously  in  process  of  construction  in  England,  to  be 
fitted  out,  armed,  and  manned  in  like  manner,  for  the  same 
purpose  ;  —  and  that  this  destruction  and  endangerment  of 
American  ships  have  already  diverted  a  very  large  part 
of  the  carrying-trade,  both  foreign  and  domestic,  from  Ame- 
rican to  English  vessels,  and  are  daily  tending  to  increase 
English  commercial  prosperity  in  a  ratio  at  least  equal  to  the 
injury  to  the  shipping  interests  of  the  United  States. 

Another  hardly  less  remarkable  fact  is,  that  while  England 
is  thus  industriously  and  zealously  aiding  the  rebels,  and 
furnishing  them  the  most  efficient  means  which  they  now 
possess  of  maintaining  their  Rebellion,  no  other  country  has 
furnished  a  solitary  vessel,  great  or  small,  or  assisted  in  the 
furnishing  of  one  ;  while  three  of  those  countries  at  the  least 
—  France,  Russia,  and  Spain  —  have  abundant  means  of  doing 
so,  though,  so  far  as  a  selfish  interest  is  involved,  no  one  of 
them  has  an  equal  temptation. 

If  this  state  of  affairs  be  indeed  reconcilable  with  reasona- 
ble good  fiith  on  the  part  of  the  English  Government  and 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED    STATES.  5 

people,  —  if  these  vessels  are  thus  built,  equipped,  armed, 
manned,  and  furnished  to  the  rebels,  in  such  manner  and 
under  such  circumstances  as  to  involve  no  breach  of  the  law 
of  nations,  and  to  be  in  no  such  contravention  of  the  neu- 
trality laws  of  England  as  reasonably  requires  the  interposi- 
tion of  her  Government  to  prevent  it  in  good  faith  to  the 
United  States,  —  then  it  is  our  duty  to  acquiesce  in  the  evil,  as 
a  misfortune  for  which  we  have  no  cause  of  complaint  against 
her,  and  to  seek  relief  only  in  efforts  to  capture  and  destroy 
them. 

If,  on  the  other  ■  hand,  these  doings  are  in  substantial 
violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  or  in  plain  contravention  of 
municipal  laws  made  to  prevent  such  interference  between 
belligerents  on  friendly  terms  with  England,  —  laws  which 
could  be  enforced  without  any  just  cause  of  complaint  on 
the  part  of  either  of  the  belligerents,  and  the  enforcement 
of  which,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  is 
plainly  called  for  by  a  just  impartiality,  —  then  a  good  cause 
for  complaint,  and  for  claiming  full  indemnity,  will  be  made 
out. 

Nor  does  the  law  of  self-defence  stop  here.  For,  if  it  could 
be  shown  that  these  proceedings  were  in  d.erogation,  neither 
of  the  law  of  nations,  nor  of  the  existing  neutrality  laws  of 
England,  but  that  they  are  nevertheless  so  injurious,  in 
strengthening  the  arms  of  the  rebels  and  in  weakening  our 
own,  as,  unless  prevented,  to  endanger  the  restoration  of 
our  Government  to  its  lawful  authority,  and  put  our  national 
life  at  hazard,  —  it  would  then  become  justifiable  by  the  law  of 
self-preservation,  lying  at  the  foundation  of  all  codes  whether 
of  international  or  of  civil  law,  to  account  those  thus  furnish- 
ing essential  aid  to  our  enemies  as  their  allies,  and  so  our 
enemies  also,  and  to  declare  war  against  them  ;  —  it  being 
obviously  absurd  to  deny  that  one  who  is  put  on  the  defence 
of  his  life  is  under  any  obligation  to  stand  quietly  by,  and  see 
the  enemy,  whik^  seeking  to  destroy  it,  supplied  with  the 


NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OP 


essential  means  for  doing  so  by  another,  and  to  waive  all 
right  of  self- protection  against  them.  If  that  protection 
be  not  given  by  the  Government  in  the  control  of  its  sub- 
jects, it  must  be  sought  in  the  only  way  left  to  injured 
nations. 


20  August,  1863. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE    UNITED   STATES. 


II. 


LAWS   OF  NEUTRALITY.      GENERAL   PRINCIPLES. 

The  primary  principle  of  neutrality  under  tlic  law  of  nations 
is  the  strictest  impartiality  in  regard  to  each  of  the  bellige- 
rents. "  The  neutral  is  justly  and  happily  designated  by  the 
Latin  expression,  in  hello  medlus.  It  is  of  the  essence  of  his 
character,  that  he  so  retain  this  central  position  as  to  incline 
to  neither  belligerent."  * 

The  law  of  nations  prohibits  the  enlisting  of  soldiers  or 
sailors  in  the  territory  of  a  neutral  nation  for  service  in  the 
army  or  navy  of  a  belligerent  at  war  with  any  nation  which 
is  at  peace  with  such  neutral,  and  also  tlie  fitting-out  of  any 
military  or  naval  expedition  therein  for  such  service ;  and  the 
doing  of  any  such  act  by  the  neutral,  or  the  suffering  it  to  be 
done  within  its  jurisdiction,  with  the  consent  or  connivance 
of  the  Government,  is  just  cause  of  reclamation,  —  and  of  war, 
if  satisfaction  be  not  given.  All  captures  made  by  vessels 
thus  fitted  out  are  in  the  nature  of  wrongs,  and  impose  upon 
the  neutral  nation  the  duty  of  preventing  them  within  its  ter- 
ritorial limits,  and  of  restoring  to  the  injured  parties  the  pro- 
perty so  taken,  if  found  within  its  jurisdiction.! 

So  a  capture  made  by  a  belligerent  ship  within,  neutral  ter- 
ritory, or  by  the  boats  of  a  vessel  lying  there,  although  the 
actual  seizure  be  made  without  the  territorial  ]iB9its..Qf  Jhe 


•  Phillimore  on  International  Law,  vol.  iii.  §  137. 
t  5  Wlieuton's  Rep.  385,  "  La  Aniistad  ile  Rues." 

7  Wheaton's  Rep.  496,  the  "  Arrogante  Barcclones. 

7  Wiieaton's  Rep.  520,  the  "Monte  Allegre." 


8  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

neutral,  is  void ;  and  it  is  tbe  duty  of  the  neutral  to  restore 
the  captured  property,  if  brought  within  its  jurisdiction,  or  to 
make  a  claim  upon  the  offending  belligerent,  and  to  indemnify 
the  party  injured.  No  proximate  act  of  loar  is  allowed  by  the 
law  of  nations  to  originate  on  neutral  ground  ;  and,  if  so  origi- 
nated, it  is  a  just  cause  of  complaint,  and  of  demand  for  in- 
demnity, by  the  belligerent  nation  against  which  it  is  perpe- 
trated. 

How  far  a  nation  is  responsible  for  such  acts  committed 
clandestinely  by  its  own  subjects,  without  its  knowledge  or 
connivance  or  tacit  sufferance,  does  not  appear  to  be  dis- 
tinctly stated.  Upon  all  sound  principle,  however,  it  is  clear, 
that,  if  such  acts  are  breaches  of  the  law  of  nations,  the  neu- 
tral must  be  responsible  for  want  of  reasonable  diligence  and 
care  on  the  part  of  its  Government  to  prevent  them,  or  for 
failure  to  make  a  reclamation  of  the  offending  nation  in  order 
to  indemnify  the  injured  party ;  it  being  the  duty  of  the  neu- 
tral in  such  cases  to  intervene,  inasmuch  as  the  injured  party 
cannot  have  redress  against  its  enemy  for  violation  of  neutrali- 
ty, or  for  injuries  inflicted  by  him  on  neutral  ground.  And, 
if  the  offending  belligerent,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be 
incapable  of  making  redress,  justice  requires  that  the  neutral 
permitting  the  injury  within  its. territories  should  be  imme- 
diately responsible  for  full  indemnity ;  and,  if  the  neutral 
power  be  unable  or  unwilling  to  protect  the  belligerent  on  its 
territory,  the  right  of  self-protection  then  arises,  and  justifies 
him  in  any  measures  necessary  for  self-defence  upon  the  terri- 
tory of  the  neutral,  and  even  in  a  declaration  of  war. 

But,  although  it  is  not  permissible,  by  the  law  of  nations, 
for  the  citizens  of  a  neutral  nation  to  furnish,  fit  out,  or  equip 
vessels  of  war  for  the  service  of  a  belligerent,  or  to  augment 
the  warhke  force  of  a  vessel  in  such  service,  or  to  commit 
any  proximate  act  of  war  against  his  enemy  within  the  terri- 
torial limits  of  the  neutral,  it  is  lawful  to  sell  arms  and  muni- 
tions of  war  to  either  belligerent,  or  to  the  citizens  of  either, 


ENGLAND   AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  9 

to  be  transported  to  a  foreign  port  (the  seller  or  purchaser 
taking  the  risk  of  capture  by  the  eneuiy  in  such  transporta- 
tion), or  to  sell  them  in  the  neutral  port  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  trade,  provided  that  it  is  a  mere  sale  of  articles  in  which 
the  neutral  has  a  right  of  traffic ;  and  then  the  subsequent  or 
remote  use  which  the  purchaser  may  make  of  them,  to  which 
he  is  no  party,  attaches  no  wrong  to  the  transaction.  But, 
when  delivery  is  to  the  enemy  in  the  neutral  country,  in 
order  and  with  intent  to  constitute  an  augmentation  of  his 
warlike  armaments  about  to  issue  from  it,  it  is  an  immediate 
or  proximate  act  of  war,  which  the  law  of  nations  does  not 
tolerate,  and  which  no  neutral  government  is  justifiable  in 
permitting,  or  in  failing  to  use  reasonable  diligence  to  pre- 
vent.* 

There  is,  therefore,  no  good  ground  of  complaint  against 

England  because  her  citizens  sell  arms  and  munitions  of  war 

to  the  rebels,  either  delivered  to  them  within  her  territories, 

'  to  be  transported  by  them  to  ports  in  their  possession,  or  sent 

for  sale  at  such  ports  at  the  risk  of  the  venders.     This  they 

have  a  perfect  right  to  do.  -^ 

^~*0n  the  same  principle,  it  is  attempted  to  be  maintained,  that 
subjects  of  England  may  build  and  equip  ships  of  war  on  con- 
tract with  the  rebels,  to  be  delivered  in  her  ports  or  in  their 
own,  or  at  sea,  or  in  neutral  ports,  designed  for  the  commis- 
sion of  hostilities  against  the  United  States,  and  that  such 
sale  and  delivery  constitute  no  offence  against  the  law  of 
nations  or  her  Neutrality  Act ;  and  tlie  case  of  the  "  Santissi- 
ma  Trinidad,"  above  cited,  is  confidently  relied  upon  as  con- 
firming this  doctrine.  But  that  it  falls  very  far  short  of  doing 
so,  is  manifest;  as  neither  was  the  vessel  built,  nor  was  her 
armament  furnished,  upon  any  contract  of  sale  or  other  agree- 
ment with  the  belligerent,  nor  were  they  sent  out  under  an}^, 
but  were  so  sent  for  sale  entirely  as  a  commercial  adventure, 

*  7  Wliciitoii's  Rep.  283,  the  "  Santissimii  TrinidiiJ." 
2 


10  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF       ' 

—  the  vessel  being  convertible  into  a  merchantman  by  the 
mere  removal  of  her  armament ;  —  so  that  the  Jixed  intent  or 
purpose  of  having  either  used  in  the  commission  of  hostilities 
against  a  friendly  nation  was  wanting. 

Lord  Palmerston,  in  the  recent  debate  above  referred  to,  in 
which  he  betrays  an  ignorance  of  American  history  and  judi- 
cial decisions  upon  this  branch  of  national  law  in  correspond- 
ence with  his  generally  superficial  treatment  of  the  subject, 
if  his  speech  is  correctly  reported,  seems  to  place  this  right 
of  a  neutral  to  sell  ships  of  war  to  a  belligerent  upon  the  ground, 
that  "  no  distinction  can  be  drawn  between  ships  that  may 
evidently  be  built  for  warlike  purposes  and  those  that  may 
be  eventually  applied  to  warlike  purposes."  He  proceeds  to 
illustrate  the  position  by  the  convertibility  of  steam-vessels 
in  the  passenger  and  merchant  service,  that  could  readily  be, 
and  some  of  which  have  been,  converted  into  ships  of  war; 
and  puts  the  case  of  the  "  Nashville,"  converted  from  a  pas- 
senger-ship into  a  privateer,  as  an  instance.  And  he  con- 
tinues :  "  In  the  same  way,  a  ship  might  be  built  in  this  coun- 
try, capable  of  being  converted  into  a  ship  of  war,  but  with 
respect  to  which,  while  building,  it  would  be  perfectly  im- 
possible to  prove,  by  any  legal  construction,  that  she  was 
intended  for  a  ship  of  war,  and  therefore  liable  to  be  interfered 
with." 

Now,  such  language  as  this  might  have  done  very  well  a 
few  years  ago,  before  the  invention  of  Monitors  and  Tur- 
reted  Rams,  when  the  great  distinction  betAveen  ships  of  war 
and  merchantmen  was  the  armaments  of  the  former,  and  the 
want  of  them  in  the  latter ;  but  it  is  mere  trifling  with  prin- 
ciples and  facts  as  applied  to  modern,  or  what  is  rapidly  be- 
coming the  principal  system  of  modern,  naval  warfare. 

It  is  self-evident,  that  a  Monitor  or  Turreted  Ram  can  never 
be  built,  nor  be  intended  to  be  used,  as  a  merchant  vessel,  and 
that,  practically  speaking,  it  can  never  be  so  employed ;  for, 
if  it  were  physically  possible  for  the  hull  to  be  so,  its  cost,  and 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED  STATES.  1  I 

weip^lit,  and  want  of  adaptation,  would  render  it  impossiMe  to 
anticipate  any  purchase  or  employment  of  the  vessel  for  such 
a  purpose.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  manifest  that  such  a  vessel 
is  a  complete  and  most  formidable  engine  of  war,  though  she 
may  not  have  a  gun  on  board.  Her  bulk,  weight,  and  spec<l 
under  steam,  and  her  armed  beak,  and  power  to  eject  hot  water 
and  steam  upon  the  enemy's  deck,  make  her  as  formidable, 
without  any  guns  to  complete  her  armament,  as  she  would  lie 
with  them,  to  any  merchant  vessel,  or  to  any  much  weaker 
vessel  of  war,  —  with  the  only  exception  of  being  unable  to 
operate  at  equally  long  range  ;  and  the  commerce  of  a  nation 
might  be  swept  from  the  ocean  by  vessels  of  this  descrip- 
tion, without  a  gun  on  board,  as  eftectually  as  by  those  heavily 
armed  with  ordnance. 

If,  then,  the  prohibition,  by  the  law  of  nations,  of  the  fitting- 
out  or  equipping  ships  of  war  by  a  neutral  in  her  own  ports 
to  commit  hostilities  against  a  friendly  belligerent  is  founded 
on  any  principle,  it  applies  to  vessels  of  this  description  with- 
out further  armament,  as  well  as  to  those  of  the  ancient  model 
furnished  with  guns.  Nor  would  England,  if  at  war,  for  a 
moment  tolerate  in  any  neutral  nation  the  prevarication  by 
which  it  should  be  attempted  to  draw  such  a  distinction,  and 
to  claim  immunity  for  furnishing  the  enemy  with  such  ships 
of  war. 

There  is  a  remarkable  dearth  of  authority  and  satisfactory 
discussion  in  England  upon  the  question,  now  of  such  immi- 
nent importance,  of  what  constitutes  such  "  fitting-out  of  a 
naval  expedition,  or  of  vessels  of  war,"  by  a  neutral,  or  in 
a  neutral  port,  as  shall  constitute  a  violation  of  the  law  of 
nations,  or  of  the  Neutrality  Acts.  It  is  clear,  that  the  mere 
building  and  equipping  of  a  vessel  of  war  for  sale  in  a  neutral 
port  is  no  such  violation,  nor  the  building  for  a  belligerent  of 
a  vessel  which  may  be  designed  for  one  of  war  or  for  some 
peaceful  service.  And,  so  far  as  the  case  of  the  ''  Santissima 
Trinidad"  shall  be  accepted  as  authority  on  a  point,  which, 


12  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OP 

though  raised,  was  not  necessary  for  its  decision,  it  appears 
that  the  sending-out  by  a  neutral  of  a  vessel  equipped  with 
a  warlike  armament  as  a  commercial  adventure,  for  sale  to  a 
belligerent  if  he  shall  see  fit  to  purchase,  is  no  such  violation 
of  the  law  of  nations  or  of  our  Neutrality  Act,  —  though  the 
doctrine  appears  substantially  inconsistent  with  the  principles 
announced  by  the  same  Court  in  later  cases,  and  a  rigid 
enforcement  of  a  perfect  system  of  neutrality  might  seem  to 
require  that  such  an  expedition,  followed  by  a  sale  to  the 
bellisxerent,  should  be  accounted  a  substantial  violation  of 
them,  —  the  mere  contingency,  that  the  belligerent  might  not 
elect  to  purchase,  being  too  remote  to  disprove  a  real  inten- 
tion to  sell  to  him,  and  being  one  so  easily  feigned. 

Whether  the  construction  and  equipment  of  a  ship  of  war 
in  a  neutral  port,  upon  a  contract  with  a  belligerent,  for  de- 
livery there,  with  knowledge  by  the  builder  of  the  intention 
to  use  her  in  hostile  operations  against  a  power  in  peaceful 
relations  with  the  government  of  the  neutral  (such  knowledge 
being  either  necessarily  inferable  from  her  not  being  suscep- 
tible of  any  other  use  than  for  the  purposes  of  war,  or  other- 
wise satisfactorily  proved),  are  in  violation  of  the  neutrality 
act  of  Great  Britain,  is  a  question  now  pending  in  her  courts. 
A  respectable  tribunal  has  decreed  that  they  are  not ;  but  an 
appeal  has  been  taken,  and  the  ultimate  decision  is  looked  for 
with  great  interest.  No  doubt  can  be  entertained,  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  American  decisions  under  the  American  Enlist- 
ment Act,  a  contrary  doctrine  obtains  in  the  United  States, 
and  that,  in  an  American  court,  a  friendly  belligerent  would 
find  entire  protection  against  any  such  designs. 

But,  whatever  differences  of  opinion  may  exist  as  to  the 
degree  of  preparation  or  design  necessary  to  constitute  a  vio- 
lation of  neutrality,  there  seems  to  be  no  question,  that  the 
combined  equipment,  armament,  and  preparation  of  a  vessel 
for  immediate  hostilities,  with  the  intention  of  sailing  from 
the  neutral  port  for  such  purpose,  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  13 

nations  and  of  the  Neutrality  Acts,  exposing  the  guilty  parties 
to  the  pains  and  penalties  of  the  law,  and  tlie  vessel  to  forfeit- 
ure. "  Where  the  elements  of  armaments  are  combined,  they 
come  within  the  provision  of  the  law ; "  but,  if  that  combina- 
tion does  not  take  place  until  they  have  left  the  neutral  coun- 
try and  are  no  longer  within  its  jurisdiction,  it  is  said  that  its 
Government  cannot  interpose. 

Upon  the  principles  above  stated,  great  and  most  interesting 
questions  are  to  be  solved  between  the  United  States  and 
England,  —  both  concerning  the  various  vessels,  built  in  Eng- 
lish ports,  armed,  equipped,  and  mainly  manned,  by  English 
subjects,  and  now  careering  the  seas,  in  the  service  of  the 
rebels,  for  the  destruction  of  American  commerce,  —  and  con- 
cerning other  formidable  vessels  of  war  now  in  process  of 
construction  there  for  the  like  service. 

22  August,  1863. 


14  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OP 


III. 


HISTORY    OF    THE    NEUTRAL     RELATIONS     BETWEEN    ENGLAND     AND 
THE    UNITED    STATES. 

The  true  construction,  however,  of  the  obhgations  of  a 
neutral  power,  in  reference  to  the  fitting-out  of  ships  of  war 
within  its  jurisdiction  to  serve  against  a  friendly  belligerent, 
both  under  the  law  of  nations  and  its  own  municipal  laws, 
would  seem  to  have  been  long  ago  conclusively  settled,  at 
least  as  between  England  and  the  United  States,  if  precedent  is 
of  any  authority,  or  if  scrupulous  fidelity  in  preventing  such 
proceedings  by  one  party,  at  the  instance  of  the  other,  can  be 
considered  as  imposing  upon  the  latter  any  reciprocal  duty ; 
nnd  this,  too,  in  the  application  of  such  obligations  to  cases 
where  the  warlike  force  depended,  as  of  old,  on  the  armament, 
and  not  upon  the  peculiar  construction  and  equipment  of  the 
hull.  And  it  does,  indeed,  seem  passing  strange,  that  such 
entire  ignorance  of,  or  careful  abstinence  from  reference  to, 
not  remote  history,  should  characterize  all  the  debates  in 
Parliament,  and  discussions  by  the  ministerial  presses  and 
the  courts  of  law,  upon  this  subject.  In  contemplating  the 
treatment  which  this  country  has  received,  and  is  receiv- 
ing, at  the  hands  of  England,  in  this  struggle  for  national  life 
one  is  almost  driven  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  history  and  the 
fate  of  America,  even  in  reference  to  the  neutral  obligations 
of  England  towards  her,  are  looked  upon  as  beneath  an  Eng- 
lishman's study  or  consideration ;  he  seeming  to  care  nothing 
about  either,  or  his  only  thought  being  how  to  make  the  most 
of  the  complication  for  his  own  benefit. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED    STATES.  15 

After  the  termination  of  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and  the 
acknowledgnient  of  the  United  States  as  an  independent 
nation,  and  when  occasion  arose  to  develop  her  sense  of 
duty  as  a  neutral  under  the  law  of  nations,  it  is  gratifying 
to  know,  that  she  commenced  her  career  by  the  most  liberal 
interpretation  of  it  in  reference  to  her  obligations  and  the 
rights  of  others,  and  has  ever  since  been  foremost  in  the 
effort  to  place  these  upon  foundations  of  the  broadest  human- 
ity. The  first  call  made  upon  her  was  a  crucial  test ;  for  it 
was  made  by  England,  her  recent  oppressor  and  enem}',  for 
protection  against  the  violation  of  neutral  relations  within 
her  territories  by  or  in  behalf  of  the  subjects  of  France,  her 
ally  and  friend,  by  whom  she  had  been  aided  in  the  war  witli 
England,  and  towards  whom  the  United  States  felt  and  ac- 
knowledged the  strongest  obligations. 

In  the  great  war  then  raging  between  England  and  France, 
the  English  Government  entertained,  very  naturally  and  with 
good  reason,  apprehensions  that  privateers  would  be  fitted 
out  in  the  United  States  to  prey  upon  English  commerce 
under  the  French  flag ;  and,  their  apprehensions  being  com- 
municated to  our  Government,  President  Washington,  in  1793, 
issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  all  such  violations  of  neutrali- 
ty, and  stating  that  instructions  had  been  given  to  the  officers  of 
the  United  States  to  cause  prosecutions  to  be  instituted  against 
all  persons  who  should  violate  the  law  of  nations,  with  respect 
to  the  powers  at  war,  or  any  other.  The  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  Mr.  Hamilton,  issued  instructions  to  the  collectors 
of  the  customs,  commencing  with  the  following  preamble  : 
"  It  appearing  that  repeated  contraventions  of  our  neutrality 
have  taken  place  in  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  without 
having  been  discovered  in  time  for  prevention  or  remedy,  I 
have  it  in  command  from  the  President  to  address  to  the  collect- 
ors of  the  respective  districts  a  particular  instruction  upon 
the  subject."  And  he  proceeds  to  direct  them  to  "  have  a 
vigilant  eye  upon  whatever  may  be  passing  within  the  ports. 


16  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

harbors,  creeks,  inlets,  and  waters  [of  their  respective  dis- 
tricts], of  a  nature  to  contravene  the  laws  of  neutrality  ;  and, 
upon  discovery  of  anything  of  the  kind,  to  give  immediate 
notice  to  the  Governor  of  the  State,  and  to  the  Attorney  of 
the  Judicial  District."  *  At  the  same  time,  the  Governors 
of  States  were  called  upon  to  cause  vessels  to  be  arrested,  if 
about  to  depart  on  any  such  service  ;  and  several  were  so 
arrested,  and  prevented  from  sailing.  Prizes,  which  had  been 
taken  by  such  privateers  fitted  out,  and  sailing  from  ports,  in 
the  United  States,  were  restored  to  the  British  owners ;  and 
the  Government  of  tiie  United  States  proclaimed,  that  it  held 
itself  responsible  to  indemnify  for  such  captures. 

All  this  was  done  under  a  sense  of  duty,  as  imposed  by  the 
law  of  nations^  no  Enlistment  Act  having  then  been  passed. 
But,  in  1794,  Congress,  with  an  earnest  desire  to  preserve  the 
strictest  fidelity,  enacted  a  statute  on  tin's  subject,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  compelling  the  observance  of  an  entire  neutrality 
Avithin  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  And,  in  the 
same  year,  a  treaty  was  made  with  England,  in  which  one 
clause  provided,  that  the  United  States  should  make  indem- 
nity to  British  owners  for  vessels  which  had  been  previously 
captured  by  privateers  that  had  been  fitted  out  in  the  United 
States.  This  Act  of  1794  ivas  made  immediately  after  the 
application  of  the  British  Government  upon  this  subject,  and 
for  the  purpose  of  insui^ng  the  immediate  observance  of  a  strict 
neutrality ;  as  was  expressly  admitted  and  stated  by  Mr.  Can- 
ning in  Parliament.  —  (Canning's  Speeches,  vol.  iv.  pp.  52,  53.) 
And  yet  we  are  now  coolly  told  by  Lord  Palmerston  and 
Earl  Russell,  that  England  cannot  alter  her  municipal  laws  to 
suit  other  governments ! 

The  Act  of  1794  was  revised,  and  a  new  act  passed,  by 
Congress  in  1818,  containing  still  more  rigorous  provisions  for 
the  preservation  of  a  strict  neutrality,  in  immediate  reference 

*  1  American  State  Papers,  p.  140. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE  UNITED   STATES.  17 

to  the  war  then  raging  between  Spain  and  lier  Soutli-Aineri- 
can  colonies.  And,  in  1810,  the  Englisli  Government  imitated 
our  example,  by  the  enactment  ol'the  Statute  59  George  IH., 
constituting  tlieir  present  municipal  code  upon  this  subject; 
—  a  statute  in  substantial  conformity  with  that  of  the  United 
States,  and  giving,  certainly,  reasonable  ground  of  expecta- 
tion, that  England  was  thenceforth  to  stand  pledged  to  the 
same  faithful  and  honorable  discharge  of  the  duties  of  neu- 
trality towards  this  country  as  had  been  practised  by  us 
towards  her. 

These  Neutrality  Acts  are  founded  upon  the  law  of  nations, 
and  designed  to  secure  its  enforcement  by  remedies  consist- 
ing of  provisions,  and  forms  of  proceeding,  and  pains  and 
penalties,  necessarily  of  a  municipal  nature ;  there  being  no 
international  remedy  applicable  to  cases  within  the  territorial 
jurisdiction  of  a  neutral  nation.  The  portions  most  material 
to  the  matter  in  hand  are  as  follows,  taken  from  the  English 

■r Statute-  &d  George  III. : — __„. . 

1  Section  2  provides,  that  if  any  subject  shall  enlist,  or  agree 

to  enlist,  as  an  officer  or  soldier  or  sailor,  for  any  warlike  pur- 
pose in  any  foreign  service,  or  go  to  any  foreign  state  with 
a  view  so  to  enlist  ;  or  if  any  person  within  the  kingdom 
shall  attempt  to  hire  or  engage  any  person  so  to  enlist,  or 
to  go  or  agree  to  embark  from  his  Majesty's  dominions  for  the 
purpose  of  being  enlisted  or  engaged ;  every  such  person 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  punishable  by  fine 
and  imprisonment. 

Section  5  provides,  that  if  any  vessel  in  any  port  of  his 
Majesty's  dominions  shall  have  on  board  any  person  who 
shall  have  so  enlisted  or  engaged  to  enlist,  or  be  departing 
with  intent  to  enlist,  such  vessel,  upon  information,  shall  be 
detained  and  prevented  from  proceeding. 

Section  6  provides,  that  if  any  master  of  a  vessel  shall  know- 
ingly take  on  board,  or  any  owner  shall  knowingly  engage  to 
take  on  board,  any  person  so  enlisting  or  intending  to  enlist, 

3 


18  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OP 

he  shall  forfeit  X50  for  every  person  so  taken,  and  the  vessel 
shall  be  detained  until  payment  of  the  penalty. 

Section  7  (corresponding  substantially  with  the  third 
section  of  the  statute  of  the  United  States  of  1818,  chap- 
ter 88,  and  containing  the  provisions  most  material  for 
consideration)  enacts,  that,  "  if  any  person,  within  any  part 
of  the  United  Kingdom,  shall  without  the  leave,  &c.,  &c.,  equip, 
furnish,  fit  out,  or  arm,  or  attemid  or  endeavor  to  equip,  fur- 
nish, fit  out,  or  arm,  or  procure  to  be  equipped,  furnished, 
fitted  out,  or  armed,  or  shall  knowingly  aid,  assist,  or  be  con- 
cerned, in  the  equipping,  furnishing,  fitting  out,  or  arming,  of 
any  ship  or  vessel,  tuith  intent  or  in  order  that  such  ship 
or  vessel  shall  be  employed  in  the  service  of  any  foreign 
prince,  state,  or  potentate,  &c.,  &g.,  as  a  transport  or  store- 
ship,  or  with  intent  to  cruise  or  commit  hostilities  against  any 
prince,  state,  or  potentate,  <fec.,  «fec.,  with  whom  his  Majesty 
shall  not  then  be  at  war ; "  ''  every  such  person  so  offending 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  shall,  upon  con- 
viction thereof,  upon  any  information  or  indictment,  be  pun- 
ished by  fine  and  imprisonment,  or  either  of  them,  at  the 
discretion  of  the  court  in  which  such  offender  shall  be  con- 
victed ;  and  every  such  ship  or  vessel,  with  the  tackle,  apparel, 
and  furniture,  together  loith  cdl  the  materials,  arms,  ammunition, 
and  stores,  which  may  belong  to,  or  be  on  board,  of  any  such 
ship  or  vessel,  shall  be  forfeited." 

The  verbal  differences  between  these  Statutes,  introduced 
into  that  of  England,  seem  to  render  it,  if  anything,  more 
explicit  and  comprehensive  than  that  of  the  United  States ; 
and  would  seem,  therefore,  to  require  of  English  tribunals 
at  least  an  equally  liberal  interpretation,  in  favor  of  a 
friendly  belligerent,  with  that  adopted  by  the  tribunals  in 
America. 

The  next  occasion  for  the  elucidation  of  the  principles  of 
our  Government  on  this  subject  was  in  the  war  of  1854-55, 
between  Russia,  on  one  side,  and  England  and  France,  on  the 


ENGLAND    AND   TTIE   UNITED   STATES.  19 

other.  And  here,  again,  the  test  was  a  stringent  one,  as 
the  utmost  cordiality  had  always  existed  between  the  Rus- 
sian Government  and  that  of  the  United  States. 

When  that  war  broke  out,  the  Britisii  minister  at  Washing- 
ton addressed  a  communication  of  the  fact  to  the  Executive 
of  the  United  States,  in  which  he  took  occasion  to  say,  that 
"  the  allied  governments  confidently  trust  that  the  govern- 
ments of  the  countries  which  remain  neutral  durini:;  the  war 
will  sincerely  exert  every  effort  to  enforce  upon  their  subjects 
or  citizens  the  necessity  of  observing  the  strictest  neutrality ; 
and  that  the  United-States  Government  icill  give  orders  that 
no  privateers,  under  Russian  colors,  shall  be  equipped  or 
victualled  in  ports  of  the  United  States ;  and  also  that  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States  shall  rigorously  abstain  from 
taking  part  in  armaments  of  this  nature,  or  in  any  other 
measure  opposed  to  the  strictest  duties  of  neutrality.''^  And 
the  United-States  Secretary  of  State,  in  reply,  promised  the 
exercise  of  all  the  powers  of  the  Government  "  to  enforce 
obedience  to  the  neutrality  laws."  Here,  then,  we  have  the 
British  Government,  in  her  hour  of  need,  calling  upon  that 
of  the  United  States  to  take  active  measures  to  secure  the 
citizens  of  the  former  from  all  injury  by  any  departure  from 
the  strictest  duties  of  neutrality  ;  and  the  voluntary  assurance 
given  in  return,  that  the  laws  to  compel  it  should  be  rigor- 
ously enforced. 

Nor  has  it  been  left  to  conjecture  how  the  British  Govern- 
ment would  think  it  proper  to  construe  their  requisition,  or 
how  the  United  States  would  interpret  their  promise  to 
comply  with  it.  During  that  war,  the  bark  "  Maury  "  of  New 
York,  a  mere  merchant-ship,  was  fitting  out  in  New  York  for 
a  voyage  to  China  ;  and,  a  suspicion  having  arisen  in  the 
minds  of  the  British  consul  and  some  English  residents,  that 
slie  was  taking  in  arms  and  munitions  of  war,  to  be  used  in 
the  service  of  Russia,  and  the  consul  having  communicated 
his  suspicions  to  the  British  minister  at  Washington,  and  he 


20  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OP 

having  made  complaint  to  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  —  though  the  evidence  submitted,  on  which  it  was 
founded,  was  of  the  feeblest  and  most  unsatisfactory  charac- 
ter, —  the  vessel  and  cargo  were  immediately  seized  by 
oflficers  of  the  United  States,  without  the  slightest  previous 
notice  to  the  owners,  and  were  detained  until  the  British  con- 
sul, and  those  instigating  the  seizure,  were  perfectly  satisfied 
that  the  suspicions  were  wholl}^  erroneous ;  and  for  these  he 
afterwards  made  a  public  apology  in  one  of  the  gazettes  in 
that  city. 

Well  might  the  British  Government,  on  the  breaking-out 
of  the  war  with  Russia,  have  felt  apprehensions,  and  feared 
the  violation  of  a  strict  neutrality  by  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  or  their  complicity  in  such  violations,  —  and 
well  might  she  have  implored  the  interposition  of  our  Gov- 
ernment to  protect  her  from  them,  —  if  it  could  then  have 
been  anticipated  what  the  principles  and  conduct  of  her  own 
Government  and  subjects  would  be  in  like  circumstances, 
when  she  should  stand  in  the  relation  of  a  neutral,  and  the 
United  States  in  that  of  a  friendly  belligerent.  For,  if 
the  Executive  and  people  of  the  United  States  had  then 
acted  upon  no  higher  principles,  and  in  no  better  faith,  in 
their  respect  of  neutral  obligations,  than  the  ministry  and 
people  of  England  have  done  in  this  war,  the  seas  would 
have  swarmed  with  Russian  privateers,  built  and  equipped 
in  American  ports,  or  under  the  protection  of  the  American 
flag,  and  her  commerce  would  have  been  swept  from  the 
ocean. 

In  the  late  debate  in  Parliament,  above  alluded  to,  while  a 
studied  forgetfulness  of  this  case  was  observed,  —  though  it 
was  one  of  great  notoriety  in  England  when  the  suspicions 
and  seizure  of  the  "  Maury  "  were  made  known  there,  and  is 
not  to  be  supposed,  therefore,  to  have  been  forgotten,  — 
an  attempt  was  made  by  Mr.  Laird,  a  member  of  the 
House   of  Commons,   and   the    principal   builder   of  vessels 


ENGLAND   AND   TUE    UNITED   STATES.  21 

for  the  rebels,  to  justify  his  conduct  and  that  of  the 
Ministry  by  a  statement,  that,  during  the  war  with  Russia, 
a  vessel  named  the  "  America  "  was  built,  equipped,  manned, 
and  armed  in  the  United  States  for  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment, and  taken  out  to  the  Pacific  Ocean  under  the  com- 
mand of  Captain  Hudson,  an  ex-lieutenant  of  the  American 
Navy,  and  that  the  American  Government  gave  orders  to  its 
admiral  to  protect  her  from  search  by  English  and  French 
officers.  To  this  statement.  Lord  Palmcrston  hastened  to 
give  his  official  sanction ;  adding,  "  that  the  British  Govern- 
ment made  complaiid,  but  that  the  local  authorities  found  that 
there  was  no  ground  for  molesting  her ;  but  that,  nevertheless, 
there  ivas  the  best  reason  for  believing  that  the  ship  was 
destined  for  the  Russian  Government,  and  for  naval  opera- 
tions in  the  Eastern  seas,  where  the  Russian  Government 
most  needed  assistance  ;  "  "  that  they  had  reason  to  believe 
that  other  ships  were  then  building  in  America  for  the  same 
purpose,  and  would  have  been  used  if  the  tear  had  con- 
tinued; "  and  that  therefore  he  held,  that,  on  mere  ground 
of  international  Id^v,  belligerents  have  no  riglit  to  complain, 
if  merchants,  as  a  mercantile  transaction,  supply  one  of  the 
belligerents,  not  only  with  arms  and  cannon,  but  also  with 
ships  destined  for  warlike  purposes. 

Now,  this  story  —  in  all  that  is  essential  in  it  tending  to 
show  any  justification  of  the  conduct  of  its  author,  or  of 
his  country,  in  their  conduct  as  neutrals  towards  the  United 
States  in  furnishing  armed  ships  of  war,  or  ships  of  war  of 
any  kind  —  is  a  sheer  fabrication,  as  is  shown  by  the  official 
documents,  and  statements  by  official  authority  at  Washington, 
issued  immediately  upon  the  publication  of  that  debate  in 
this  country. 

By  them  it  appears,  that,  after  the  capture  of  Sebastopol 
and  the  virtual  ending  of  tlie  Crimean  war,  a  vessel,  which 
may  have  been  built  to  serve  as  a  steam-tug  in  the  Russian 
possessions  on  the  North-west  Coast  (but,  if  so,  the  Execu- 


22  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

tive  Government  of  the  United  States  had  no  knowledge 
of  it,  and  no  complaint  of  it  whatever  had  been  made  from 
any  quarter),  sailed  from  New  York  under  the  command  of  a 
master  who  was  named  Hudson  (and  who  previously  had  been 
a  midshipman  in  the  Navy  of  the  United  States),  and  put  into 
Rio  Janeiro  on  her  way,  in  February,  1856  ;  —  that  she  was  not 
armed,  nor  in  any  manner  equipped  as  a  vessel  of  war  ; — :but 
that,  suspicions  being  excited  by  the  statement  of  a  British 
sailor  (who  had  shipped  there,  and  had  been  dismissed  two 
hours  afterwards  for  misconduct)  that  she  had  arms  concealed 
under  her  coal,  the  British  and  French  officers  insisted  on 
the  right  to  search  her.  This  right  was  denied  by  Captain 
Hudson.  But  he  gave  his  affidavit  (with  the  approbation  of 
the  commander  of  an  American  frigate  then  in  port),  stating 
that  there  were  no  other  arms  or  munitions  of  war  on  board 
than  one  Minie  rifle,  one  double-barrelled  shot-gun,  one  pair 
of  Colt's  revolvers,  one  pair  of  pocket  pistols,  a  ten-pound 
keg  of  powder,  and  a  bag  of  No.  6  robin  shot ;  and  that  his 
manifest,  exhibited,  was  in  every  particular  correct.  This 
not  appearing  to  be  a  supply  of  arms  and  ammunition  cal- 
culated to  frighten  the  British  and  French  naval  forces  in 
the  Pacific,  "  the  affidavit  quieted  the  excitement,  and  she 
was  allowed  to  proceed."  Now,  it  is  expressly  stated,  upon 
official  authority,  that  no  complaint  of  any  sort  concerning 
this  vessel  is  on  file  in  any  department  of  the  United-States 
Government  from  any  diplomatic  or  consular  office  of  Eng- 
land, France,  or  any  other  enemy  of  Russia  ;  while  the 
regular  official  account  of  the  afiair  (as  given  above)  from 
the  Minister  of  the  United  States  in  Brazil  is  on  file  in  its 
proper  place. 

If  any  complaint  was  made  by  the  British  Government  on 
this  subject,  as  alleged  by  Lord  Palmerston  in  his  place  in 
Parliament,  or  if  his  Government  were  not  satisfied,  it  can, 
of  course,  be  shown  by  reference  to  the  British  archives, 
although  not  found  in  those  of  the  United  States;   unless, 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STAETS.  23 

indeed,  it  be  tliouglit  too  condescending  to  admit  or  correct 
a  misstatement  made  by  an  English  Prime  Minister,  even 
though  of  moment  in  a  question  affecting  the  relative  good 
faith  of  two  nations,  and  possibly  their  future  peaceful 
relations. 

The  probability  seems  to  be,  that  his  Lordship,  not  having 
thought  it  worth  while  to  refresh  his  memory  upon  the  sub- 
ject, confounded  this  case  Avith  that  of  the  "  Maury,"  above 
stated,  where  complaint  Avas  actually  made ;  but  forgot  the 
other  part  of  it,  —  that  not  only  did  the  local  authorities  find 
that  there  was  no  ground  for  arresting  her,  but  that  the  rep- 
resentative of  his  Government  was  satisfied  that  the  com- 
plaint was  not  only  groundless,  but  so  unwarrantable,  that  he 
made  a  public  apology  for  having  caused  it  to  be  made. 

It  would  be  but  the  merest  justice,  on  the  part  of  Lord 
Palmerston,  to  specify  those  other  cases  of  suspicion,  spoken 
of  in  his  speech,  allusion  to  which  must  have  been  intended 
to  confirm  suspicions  that  this  country  had  been  guilty  of 
violations  of  neutrality  similar  to  those  now  complained  of  by 
us ;  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  a  just  sense  of  the  respon- 
sibility of  making  such  grave  charges  against  another  nation, 
may  lead,  when  the  subject  is  next  up,  or  on  some  equally 
prominent  occasion,  to  some  specification  by  which  their 
truth  may  be  tested. 

He  cannot  be  ignorant  that  such  statements,  made  in  his 
place,  go  forth  to  his  countrymen,  if  not  to  the  world,  with 
the  force  of  absolute  truth,  and  produce  convictions  far 
beyond  the  mere  literal  meaning  of  them  ;  and  he  owes  it 
to  a  respect  for  his  position,  if  not  to  his  own  reputation 
as  a  truth-telling  gentleman,  not  to  indulge  in  those  grave 
suggestions  and  innuendoes  of  bad  faith  against  a  nation, 
unless  he  be  prepared  to  maintain  them  by  satisfactory  proof. 
That  proof,  if  it  exist,  the  people  of  the  LTnited  States  have  a 
right  to  demand  at  his  hands. 

As  to  the  other  attempt  made  by  Mr.  Laird  to  implicate  the 


24  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

Government  of  the  United  States,  by  charging  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  with  efforts  to  procure  hira  to  buikl  ships  of  war 
for  its  service  in  the  present  RebelHon,  it  is  presumed  that 
the  official  declaration  of  that  officer,  that  he  never  made  any 
such  attempt,  nor  authorized  any  other  person  to  make  one, 
will  be  considered  a  sufficient  refutation  of  Mr.  Laird's  story, 
founded  wholly  upon  the  representations  of  a  correspondent 
whose  name  he  cannot,  or  does  not,  disclose.  But,  were  fur- 
ther refutation  necessary,  we  have  an  ample  one,  if  that  cor- 
respondent be,  as  is  supposed,  one  J.  Howard ;  who,  as  Mr. 
Sedgwick,  the  Chairman  of  the  Naval  Committee  of  the  House 
of  Representatives,  in  his  recently  published  letter  of  Aug. 
9th,  1863,  says,  "came  before  the  Committee  with  drawings, 
specifications,  estimates,  &c.,  &c.,from  the  Lairds,  sa^nng  that 
he  came  at  their  instance  to  make  these  proposals  to  the  Navy 
Department ;  that  he  was  told  to  go  to  the  Secretary  of  tlie 
Navy,  which  he  did  ;  and  afterwards  reported  to  him  [Mr. 
Sedgwick]  that  Mr.  Welles  declined  entering  into  any  nego- 
tiation about  it,  and  that  Howard  was  not  very  well  pleased 
with  the  result ;  that  he  [Howard]  was  an  agent  of  the  Lairds, 
and  not  of  the  Navy  Department ;  or,  if  not  an  agent,  a  vol- 
unteer expecting  a  commission  from  Laird  ;  and  was  furnished 
in  advance  by  him  with  plans,  estimates,  &c." 

Such  are  the  wretched  pretences  and  baseless  fabrications 
by  which  it  is  attempted  to  sustain  the  conduct  of  England 
in  this  matter,  as  justified  by  the  previous  conduct  of  the 
United  States. 

"Were  it  not  for  the  shortsightedness  ever  attending  in- 
tense selfishness,  and  ever  its  avenging  Nemesis,  it  might 
have  been  supposed  that  England  would  liave  been  careful, 
if  not  just,  in  the  observance  of  neutral  relations  to  the  United 
States,  —  at  least,  in  reference  to  privateering,  —  in  contem- 
plation of  the  possible  re-action  upon  herself  in  the  event 
of  war  between  her  and  any  other  nation.  The  Japanese,  if 
the  threatened  war  between  England  and  Japan  should  take 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES,  25 

place,  or  the  Chinese  rebels,  if  acknowledged  by  the  United 
States  as  belligerents,  would  liave  better  claims  upon  us  for 
sympathy,  and  for  material  aid  under  a  loose  construction  of 
our  neutral  obligations  to  England,  than  the  rebels  had  upon 
her,  —  to  say  nothing  of  tlie  breaking-out  of  a  war  between 
her  and  any  other  nation ;  and  it  would  only  need  that  we 
should  act  upon  that  standard  of  neutral  morality  wliich  she 
has  adopted  towards  us,  to  render  any  power  at  war  with 
her,  however  weak  or  remote,  a  most  formidable  enemy  to 
her  commerce. 

25  August,  1863. 


26  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 


IV. 


HISTORY     OF    THE     JURISPRUDENCE     OF     THE     UNITED     STATES     IN 
REFERENCE    TO    NEUTRALITY. 

The  Judicial  history  of  our  country  has  been  equally  demon- 
strative of  her  good  faith,  —  her  just  appreciation  and  faithful 
fulfilment  of  her  duties  as  a  neutral  nation, — with  the  history 
of  the  Executive  Government. 

Not  only  have  vessels  been  seized  and  detained,  and  per- 
sons punished,  for  infractions  of  the  law  of  nations  and  of  the 
Neutrality  Acts,  but  decisions  have  been  made  by  the  Supreme 
Court,  based  upon  the  recognition  of  the  broadest  principles 
of  international  good  faith,  and  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
modern  doctrines  avowed  and  acted  upon  by  the  Ministers, 
members  of  Parliament,  and  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  —  and, 
as  is  feared,  recognized  also  by  one  of  her  respectable  judicial 
tribunals. 

The  first  important  case  reported,  is  that  of  the  "  Santissima 
Trinidad,"  in  1822.  (7  Wheaton's  Rep.,  p.  283.)  The  facts 
proved  were,  that  a  vessel,  built  for  a  privateer,  and  used  as 
one  out  of  Baltimore  during  the  war  of  1812  between  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  was,  after  the  peace,  sold  by 
her  owners,  and  sent  by  the  purchasers,  with  her  armament 
and  a  cargo  of  munitions  of  war,  to  Brazil,  then  at  war  with 
Spain,  as  a  commercial  adventure,  —  for  sale  to  the  Brazilian 
Government,  if  it  should  see  fit  to  purchase  her,  but  with  no 
previous  contract  or  understanding  to  that  effect,  and,  as  it 
appears,  with  no  limitation  as  to  the  purchaser ;  her  apparent 
destination,  however,  being;  to  tlie  North-west  Coast.      She 


fA 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATES.  27 

was  purchased  by  private  individuals,  and  afterwards  commis- 
sioned as  a  Brazilian  vessel  of  war,  under  the  name  of  the 
"  Independencia  del  Sud,"  and  sailed  on  a  cruise  on  the 
Spanish  coast.  She  afterwards  put  into  Baltimore,  and  there 
enlisted  an  addition  to  her  crew  of  about  thirty  men,  and 
procured  also  another  small  vessel  as  a  tender  (called  the 
"  Altravida  "),  and  sailed  upon  a  cruise ;  in  the  course  of  which 
she  captured  the  property  in  question,  and  brought  it  into 
Norfolk,  where  it  was  landed  for  safe  keeping  in  the  custom- 
house store,  and  was  libelled  by  the  Spanish  consul  in  behalf 
of  the  original  owners. 

The  court  decreed  restitution  to  them  on  the  ground,  that 
the  augmentation  of  the  force  of  the  vessel  in  Baltimore  was 
"  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  as  well  as  of  our  own  muni- 
cipal laws,  and,  as  a  violation  of  our  neutrality,  by  analogy 
to  other  cases,  infected  captures  subsequently  made  with  the 
character  of  torts,  and  justified  and  required  a  restitution  to 
the  parties  injured  by  such  conduct ; "  and  that  "  it  did  not 
lie  in  the  mouth  of  wrong-doers  to  set  up  a  title  derived  from 
a  violation  of  our  neutrality."    (p.  297.) 

Another  point  was  made  in  the  case ;  namely,  that  the  cap- 
ture was  void,  because  the  ''  Independencia  "  and  "Altravida  " 
Avere  originally  equipped,  armed,  and  manned,  as  vessels  of 
war,  in  our  ports. 

This  point  was  summarily  dismissed,  upon  the  ground, 
that,  though  the  "  Independencia  "  was  equipped  as  a  A^essel 
of  war,  "  she  was  sent  to  Buenos  Ayres  on  a  commercial  ad- 
venture, contraband  indeed,  but  in  no  shajje  violating  our 
laws,  or  our  national  neutrality ;  "  and  that  there  was  nothing 
in  our  laws,  or  in  the  law  of  nations,  that  forbids  our  citi- 
zens from  sending  armed  vessels,  as  well  as  munitions  of 
war,  to  foreign  ports  for  sale ;  it  being  a  commercial  adven- 
ture which  no  nation  is  bound  to  prohibit,  and  which  only 
exposes  the  persons  engaged  in  it  to  the  penalty  of  confis- 
cation. 


28  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

This  opinion  (delivered  in  the  broad  and  sweeping  language 
which  was  somewhat  peculiar  to  the  learned  judge  who  pro- 
nounced it,  and  which  leads  American  lawyers  ever  to  scan 
his  decisions  with  care,  and  with  constant  reference  to  the 
facts  upon  which  they  purport  to  be  founded,)  may  perhaps 
seem  broad  enough,  at  first  view,  (and  appears  to  have  been 
so  understood  in  England)  to  cover  the  case  of  the  sending- 
out  of  an  armed  ship  to  the  belligerent  upon  a  contract  of 
sale,  and  so  to  reach  the  cases  of  the  vessels  furnished  by 
Englishmen  to  the  rebels. 

But  it  is  the  universally  established  rule  of  construction,  in 
the  courts  of  England  and  in  this  country,  that  the  language 
of  the  court,  however  broad  and  general,  is  to  be  limited  by 
the  facts  to  which  it  is  applied,  and  that  it  establishes  no  doc- 
trine beyond  that  necessary  for  the  decision  of  the  case  limited 
to  them.  Now,  the  facts  proved  in  this  case  were,  that  the 
vessel  was  not  sent  to  Brazil  under  any  contract  with  the 
Brazilian  Government,  but  only  with  instructions  to  sell  her 
to  it  if  a  suitable  price  could  be  obtained ;  and,  in  point  of 
fact,  she  was  sold  to  private  individuals  there,  and  was  sub- 
sequently sold  by  them  to  the  Government,  —  a  very  material 
distinction,  and  one  expressly  recognized  by  the  same  court 
in  a  subsequent  case. 

This  case,  therefore,  so  far  as  it  is  authority  on  this  point, 
only  establishes  the  doctrine,  that  the  equipping  of  a  vessel 
for  war  in  a  neutral  port,  and  the  sending  her  out  for  sale  to 
the  port  of  a  belligerent  as  a  commercial  adventure,  to  be  sold 
to  the  belligerent  government  if  it  shall  elect  to  purchase  her 
after  her  arrival  there,  (the  neutral  owner  taking  the  venture 
of  any  such  sale,  and  the  risk  of  capture  and  confiscation,  by 
the  other  belligerent,  as  contraband,  on  the  voyage  to  such 
port,)  is  not  a  violation  of  the  law  of  nations  or  of  our  muni- 
cipal laws.  But,  even  to  this  extent,  the  case  is  not  of  a 
very  conclusive  character,  as  the  point,  though  presented,  was 
not  material  to  the  decision  of  the  case,  nor  that  on  which  it 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  29 

depended,  and  might,  with  perfect  propriety,  have  been  left 
untouched,  and  so  the  decision  of  it  comes  very  nearly  within 
the  class  of  obiter  dicta,  which  are  of  no  authority  in  future 
decisions. 

This  is  the  decision  so  constantly  and  tauntingly  referred 
to  by  the  English  press  and  Parliament,  as  fully  justifying 
British  subjects  in  supplying  the  rebels  with  ships  of  war ; 
and  was  the  decision  supposed  to  have  been  particularly 
referred  to  in  the  judgment  in  the  recent  case  of  the 
"Alexandra,"  which  was  decided  in  favor  of  the  owners,  and 
against  her  confiscation,  on  the  broad  general  ground,  that  a 
neutral  has  the  right  to  furnish  ships  of  war,  as  well  as 
munitions  of  war,  to  a  belligerent.  With  how  little  reason  it 
can  be  thus  cited,  and  how  entirely  short  it  falls  of  justifying 
that  judgment,  is  evident  enough,  but  will  presently  be  more 
particularly  considered. 

The  next  case  is  that  of  the  ''  Gran  Para,"  —  decided  by  the 
same  court  at  the  same  term,  and  reported  in  the  same  vol- 
ume (7  Wheaton,  p.  471), —  of  striking  importance,  as  show- 
ing the  fidelity  of  our  courts  in  looking  behind  shams  in 
order  to  protect  other  nations  from  violations  of  our  neutral 
obligations,  but  entirely  overlooked,  or  perhaps  happily 
"  remembered  to  be  forgotten,"  in  the  English  discussions  of 
the  subject. 

That,  too,' was  a  case  of  libel  for  the  restitution  of  property, 
consisting  of  a  large  amount  of  gold  and  silver  coins  plun- 
dered from  Portuguese  vessels  by  a  privateer  cruising  under 
a  commission  from  the  Oriental  Republic,  on  the  ground  that 
the  captures  were  illegal,  as  made  in  violation  of  our  neu- 
trality laws. 

This  vessel  was  built  in  Baltimore  for  the  purposes  of  war, 
and,  after  being  launched,  was  purchased  by  one  Daniels, 
who  enlisted  a  crew  of  about' fifty  men,  and  took  on  board  into 
her  hold  an  armament  and  munitions  of  war,  entered  as  out- 
ward cargo.    She  cleared  for  Teneriffe,  but  proceeded  directly 


30  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

to  Buenos  Ayres,  where  the  crew  was  discharged.  But,  he 
having  obtained  a  commission  to  cruise  against  Spain,  a  crew 
was  enb'sted,  consisting  chiefly  of  the  same  persons ;  and  she 
sailed  on  a  cruise,  under  the  command  of  Daniels.  On  the 
next  day  after  sailing,  he  produced  another  commission  from 
the  chief  of  the  Oriental  Republic  to  cruise  against  Portu- 
gal, and  returned  that  from  the  Brazilian  Government,  and 
subsequently  made  the  captures  in  question.  It  was  asserted 
in  defence,  that,  —  as  she  was  not  commissioned  as  a  privateer 
when  she  sailed  from  Baltimore,  and  did  not  attempt  to  act  as 
one  until  she  reached  the  river  La  Plata,  Avhere  a  commission 
was  lawfully  obtained  and  her  crew  was  enlisted,  —  if  she 
had  committed  any  offence  against  our  neutrality  laws  at  the 
time  of  sailing  from  Baltimore  or  on  the  passage  (which  was 
denied),  it  was  deposited  at  the  end  of  that  voyage ;  and  that 
her  subsequent  cruise  could  not  be  connected  with  the  trans- 
actions at  Baltimore. 

Chief-Justice  Marshall,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  after  reciting  the  facts  and  this  defence,  used  the  fol- 
lowing indignant  and  decisive  language :  ^'  If  this  were  to  be 
admitted  in  such  a  case  as  this,  the  laws  for  the  preservation 
of  our  neutrality  would  be  completely  eluded,  so  far  as  their 
enforcement  depends  on  the  restitution  of  prizes  made  in  vio- 
lation of  them.  Vessels  completely  fitted  in  our  ports  for 
military  operations  need  only  sail  to  a  belligerent  port,  and 
there,  after  obtaining  a  commission,  go  through  the  ceremony 
of  discharging  and  re-enlisting  their  crew,  to  become  per- 
fectly legitimate  cruisers,  purified  from  every  taint  contracted 
at  the  place  where  all  their  real  force  and  capacity  for  annoy- 
ance ivere  acquired.  This  would  indeed  he  a  fraudulent  neu^ 
trality,  disgraceful  to  our  own  Government,  and  of  which  no 
nation  ivould  he  the  dupe.  It  is  therefore  very  clear,  that 
the  '  Irresistible '  was  ai'med  and  manned  in  Baltimore,  in 
violation  of  the  laws  and  of  the  neutral  obligations  of  the 
United  States ; "  —  the  court  thus  declaring  it  to  be  equally 


ENOLAXD    AND    THE    UNITKD    STATES.  31 

an    offence    against    our    Neutrality   Acts    and    the    law    of 
nations.  * 

Can  we  suppose  that  this  venerable  and  great  judge  would 
have  used  language  any  less  severe  and  reproachful  of  his 
countrymen,  if  the  case  had  been  one  of  a  vessel  built,  and 
fitted  out,  in  all  points  except  her  armament,  munitions,  and 
crew,  for  a  vessel  of  war,  in  New  York,  on  a  contract  with  a 
belligerent  government  with  whom  England  was  at  war,  and 
having  her  crew  engaged  in  New  York,  and  her  armament 
and  munitions  all  furnished,  or  made  by  contract,  there,  and 
all  shipped  there  in  vessels  under  the  United-States  flag, 
with  an  arrangement  to  meet  her  on  the  high  seas,  or  on 
some  remote  neutral  coast,  there  to  be  united,  all  being  under 
the  protection  of  the  American  flag  until  so  united,  and  until  the 
production  of  a  commission  from  the  belligerent  government 
authorizing  her,  from  that  moment,  to  plunder  and  destroy 
English  commerce  wherever  it  could  be  found  ?  Or  can  we 
suppose  that  England  would  suffer  herself  to  be  the  dupe  in 
such  a  game  ? 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that,  upon  the  principles  upon  which 
both  of  these  cases  were  decided,  the  vessels  would  have  been 
confiscated  if  seasonably  detected  and  prosecuted,  —  the  judg- 
ments being  rendered  upon  the  same  section  of  the  Neutrality 
Act  which  provides  for  a  forfeiture  of  the  vessel ;  but  no 
complaint  against  them  appears  to  have  been  made  by 
either  the  Spanish  or  Portuguese  consul  or  minister,  nor 
was  any  notice  whatever  communicated  to  the  officers  of 
our  Government  while  the  vessels  were  within  its  jurisdic- 
tion. 

The  next  case,  and  one  still  more  impressive,  as  exhibiting 
the  perfect  good  faith  with  which  our  neutrality  laws  have 
been  enforced,  and  which,  if  imitated  by  other  nations,  would 
leave  little  room  for  complaint  or  international  questions  upon 
the  subject,  is  that  of  U.  S.  v.  QuincT/  (in  1832),  ^  Peters- 
Rep.  445.     This  was  an  indictment  under  tlic  third  section 


32  NEUTRAL    EELATIONS    OF 

of  the  Neutrality  Act  of  1818,  corresponding  substantially 
with  the  seventh  section  of  the  Act  of  59  George  III. ;  the 
principal  difference  being  the  substitution  in  the  latter  of 
the  word  "  or "  for  "  and,"  rendering  its  provisions,  if  any 
change  was  thereby  made,  even  more  comprehensive  than 
those  of  the  American  statute. 

The  facts  proved  were,  that  a  Baltimore  pilot-boat,  named 
the  "  Bolivar,"  was  purchased  and  fitted  out,  by  the  defendant 
and  one  Armstrong,  with  sails  and  masts  larger  than  those 
required  for  a  merchant  vessel,  and  was  altered  so  as  to  enable 
her  to  carry  passengers,  and  by  making  a  port-hole  for  a  gun  ; 
—  and  that  she  sailed  for  St.  Thomas,  having  on  board  provis- 
ions, thirty-two  casks  of  water,  one  gun  carriage  and  slide,  a  box 
of  muskets,  and  thirteen  kegs  of  powder ;  a  bond  having  been 
given  by  the  alleged  owners  not  to  commit  hostilities  against 
any  people  at  peace  with  the  United  States.  After  her  arri- 
val at  St.  Thomas,  Armstrong  had  no  funds  to  arm  and  equip 
her,  and  it  was  uncertain  whether  he  could  get  any.  She 
was,  however,  there  fitted  out  as  a  privateer,  and  sailed  to  St. 
Eustatia  (having  changed  her  name  to  "  Las  Daraas  Argen- 
tines"), and  thence  on  a  cruise  under  command  of  the  defend- 
ant. Armstrong  went  in  her,  and  on  the  voyage  he  stated,  that, 
if  the  vessel  went  privateering,  it  would  be  under  the  Buenos- 
Ayrean  flag ;  and  that  he  had  procured  a  commission  for  the 
"  Bolivar,"  from  an  agent  of  the  Buenos-Ayrean  Government 
at  Washington,  for  $800.  She  captured  several  vessels, — 
Portuguese,  Brazilian,  and  Spanish ;  and  certain  coin  in  ques- 
tion was  taken  from  one  or  more  of  them. 

The  first  point  made  in  defence  was,  that,  as  the  "  Bolivar," 
when  she  left  Baltimore  and  when  she  arrived  at  St.  Tho- 
mas, was  not  armed,  or  at  all  prepared  for  war,  or  in  a 
condition  to  commit  hostilities,  the  verdict  must  be  for  the 
defendant.  To  which  it  was  replied,  that,  if  he  was  con- 
cerned in  the  fitting-out  of  the  "  Bolivar "  as  a  privateer, 
witJi  the  intent  that  she  should  he  employed  as  such  in  the  ser- 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED    STATES.  33 

vice  of  a  foreign  people,  to  commit  hostilities  against  tlio 
subjects  of  a  power  at  peace  with  the  United  States,  the 
defendant  was  guilty  of  the  offence  charged,  altliougii 
the  equipments  were  not  completed  within  the  United  States, 
and  the  cruise  did  not  actually  commence  until  men  were 
recruited,  and  further  equipments  made,  in  the  West  Indies. 
The  court  decided,  that  it  was  not  necessary  that  the  jury 
should  find,  or  believe,  that  the  "  Bolivar,"  when  she  left 
Baltimore  and  when  she  arrived  at  St.  Thomas,  and  dur- 
ing the  voyage,  was  armed,  or  in  a  condition  to  commit 
hostilities,  in  order  to  find  the  defendant  guilty;  but  that,  if, 
when  she  left  Baltimore,  the  owners  or  equippers  had  no  pre- 
sent intention  of  using  her  as  a  privateer,  but  intended  to  go 
to  the  West  Indies  to  endeavor  to  raise  funds  to  prepare  her 
for  a  cruise,  —  or  if,  when  she  sailed,  they  had  no  fioSed  intention 
to  employ  her  as  a  privateer,  but  only  a  Avish  so  to  employ 
her,  the  fulfilment  of  which  depended  upon  their  ability  to 
raise  funds  for  the  purpose  of  arming  and  preparing  her  for 
war,  —  then  the  defendant  was  not  guilty;  that  the  offence 
charged  consisted  iwincipally  in  the  intention  with  ivhich  the 
preparations  luere  made;  that  it  was  necessary  that  it  should 
be  found  to  have  existed  before  she  left  the  United  States, 
and  must  be  a  fixed  intention,  not  conditional  or  contingent, 
depending  on  some  future  arrangement ;  that  it  was  a  ques- 
tion exclusively  for  the  jury,  and  the  material  point  decisive 
of  the  question  was,  whether  the  adventure  was  of  a  commer- 
cial or  a  warlike  character,  —  thus  recognizing  the  distinction 
taken  in  the  first-cited  case  of  the  "  Santissiraa  Trinidad." 
It  was  further  decided,  that  "  collectors  are  not  authorized 
to  detain  vessels,  although  manifestly  built  for  warlike  pur- 
poses, and  about  to  depart  from  the  United  States,  unless 
circumstances  shall  render  it  prohahle  that  they  are  intended 
to  be  employed  by  the  owners  to  commit  hostilities  against 
some  foreign  power  at  peace  with  the  United  States,  —  thus 
allowing  all  tlie  latitude  necessary  for  commercial  purposes;  " 


34  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

but  tliat,  if  the,  intention  existed  when  she  sailed,  the  defeat  of 
such  intention  hy  what  might  afterwards  take  place  would  not 
purge  the  offence, —  it  not  being  necessary  that  the  intention 
should  he  carried  into  execution  in  order  to  constitute  the 
offence. 

27  August,  1863. 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED    STATES.  35 


V. 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  OF  ENGLAND. 

We  have  thus  an  entirely  authoritative  and  well-defined 
exposition  of  the  construction  put  upon  the  law  of  nations,  in 
regard  to  the  duties  of  the  United  States  as  a  neutral  nation, 
by  its  Executive  Government,  its  Legislature,  and  its  highest 
Judicial  tribunal ;  —  that  the  discharge  of  these  duties  is  not 
to  be  limited  or  influenced  by  any  selfish  interests,  nor  by 
any  tenderness  towards  our  own  citizens,  but  that  they  are 
to  be  fulfilled  upon  the  broadest  principles  of  disinterested 
good  faith  and  upon  the  highest  principles  of  honor. 

We  find,  that,  in  the  beginning  of  our  national  career,  the 
Executive  Department,  proceeding  only  upon  the  law  of  nations 
and  unaided  by  legislative  enactments,  under  the  guidance 
of  him  who  more  than  any  other  is  venerated  as  the  Founder 
of  the  Republic,  established  that  system  of  perfect  and  impar- 
tial neutrality  and  non-interference  with  other  nations,  which 
was  the  pole-star  of  our  foreign  policy,  and  we  trust  will  ever 
continue  to  be  so ;  —  that  it  held,  that  the  law  of  nations  not 
only  prohibits  the  rendering  of  assistance  by  organized  arma- 
ments to  a  belligerent  at  war  with  a  power  in  friendly  relations 
to  us,  but  requires  of  the  neutral  government  careful  and 
Jealous  caution  to  prevent  the  inception  and  preparation  of  any ; 
—  that  it  caused  vessels,  suspected  of  being  intended  for  such 
purposes,  to  be  arrested  and  detained,  and  the  completion 
of  their  designs  to  be  frustrated ;  —  that  it  restored  to  the 
original  (British)  owners,  prizes  captured  by  armed  vessels 


36  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

fitted  out  in  ports  of  the  United  States,  which  had  eluded  its 
vigilance  ;  and  held  itself  responsible  to  make  indemnity  for 
others  which  it  could  not  restore.  And  all  this,  though  the 
belligerent  complaining,  or  claiming  protection,  was  our  recent 
oppressor  and  adversary  in  deadly  war,  and  his  enemy,  in 
whose  behalf  these  enterprises  were  undertaken,  had  been 
our  earnest  and  faithful  friend  and  ally  in  the  struggle  against 
him,  imposing  upon  us  the  debt  of  the  profoundest  national 
gratitude. 

We  find,  that  the  Legislature,  sympathizing  with  the  Execu- 
tive in  these  lofty  views  of  national  duty,  and,  listening  to  the 
complaints  and  apprehensions  of  England,  came  promptly 
to  its  aid,  and  armed  it  with  a  stringent  code  of  laws,  not 
only  for  the  punishment,  but  for  the  effectual  2^revention,  of 
violations  of  our  neutral  obligations,  —  a  code  so  ample  and 
satisfactory,  that,  with  some  few  amendments  subsequently 
made,  it  was  afterwards  substantially  adopted  by  the  English 
Government  as  its  own. 

And,  finally,  we  find,  that  the  Judiciary,  in  the  same  spirit, 
have  construed  and  applied  both  the  law  of  nations  and  the 
Neutrality  Acts  upon  the  broadest  principles  of  good  faith,  in 
favor  of  all  nations  (the  weakest  as  well  as  the  strongest), 
and  with  unflinching  severity  upon  our  own  citizens ;  estab- 
lishing it  as  a  crime  against  both  the  law  of  nations  and  our 
statutes,  —  not  only  to  send  from  an  American  port  a  vessel 
equipped  and  armed  as  a  privateer  or  vessel  of  war,  immedi- 
ately to  prey  upon  the  commerce  of  a  friendly  belligerent,  un- 
der a  commission  already  on  board  when  she  sailed,  or  put 
on  board  on  the  high  seas  or  at  a  neutral  port,  —  but  also 
a  crime  to  send  out  such  a  vessel  to  the  enemy  of  that  bel- 
ligerent, although  going  under  our  own  flag  in  the  guise  of 
a  mercantile  adventure,  with  no  design  to  commit  hostilities 
on  her  passage  to  his  port,  nor  until  after  having  been  commis- 
sioned there  and  while  sailing  under  his  flag  (provided  that 
she  left  our  port  on  a  contract  of  sale  with  the  enemy,  or  with 


ENGLAND   AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  37 

a  fixed  intention  on  the  part  of  her  owners  so  to  use  her)  :  — 
and  not  only  thus ;  but  a  crime  against  the  statute,  to  send 
from  a  port  in  our  country,  to  the  enemy  of  such  belligerent, 
a  vessel  unarmed,  and  in  no  preparation  to  commit  hostilities, 
and  with  no  expectation  of  committing  any  until  after  her  arri- 
val in  such  enemy's  port,  and  her  being  equipped  and  armed 
and  commissioned  there  (if  such  fixed  intention  to  have  her 
so  equipped,  armed,  commissioned,  and  used,  existed  at  the 
time  of  her  departure  from  the  United  States):  —  and  not 
stopping  there  ;  but  a  crime  also,  to  commence  the  preparation, 
eqwip)ping,  or  fitting  out  of  a  vessel  for  such  hostile  purpose, 
with*  the /jjecZ  intent  so  to  use  her,  although  such  prepara- 
tion be  not  completed,  and  no  injury  be  inflicted  upon  any 
one  ;  —  the  fixed  intent,  proved,  and  coupled  with  any  act  done 
in  furtherance  of  it,  being  held  to  taint  both  the  vessel  and 
her  owners  with  the  crime,  and  to  expose  these  to  the  pains 
and  penalties  of  the  law,  for  its  perpetration,  and  the  vessel 
to  confiscation. 

Such  is  the  construction  put  by  the  Executive  and  Judicial 
departments  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  upon 
the  law  of  nations,  and  upon  our  Enlistment  Act  corresponding 
with  that  of  England,  and  such  are  our  nation's  understanding 
and  practical  performance  of  her  duties  as  a  neutral,  alike  to 
the  most  powerful  and  to  the  weakest  of  nations.  By  requisi- 
tions upon  her  public  ofiicers  faithfully  to  fulfil  their  duties  of 
inquiry  and  observation,  and  by  such  a  construction  of  the 
Enlistment  Act,  she  is  not  only  enabled  to  punish  breaches 
of  her  neutrality  already  consummated  in  wrongs  done  to  a 
friendly  nation,  hut  essentially  to  p)revent  them  ;  to  interpose, 
and  frustrate  the  incipient  attempt  to  violate  her  laws  ;  to  nip 
it  in  the  bud,  before  it  shall  have  brought  forth  the  bitter 
fruits  of  national  jealousy,  alienation,  and  resentment,  —  to 
end,  perhaps,  in  the  dire  calamity  of  war. 

How  striking  the  contrast  between  this  construction  of  a 
law,  and  of  duty  under  it,— enabling  the  Government  at  once 


1 


38  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OF 

to  place  its  hand  upon  the  vessel  and  her  offending  owners  on 
reasonable  suspicion  of  the  intended  crime  against  a  friendly 
nation,  and  to  hold  them  for  a  judicial  investigation  of  their 
real  purpose,  and  condemning  the  one  to  forfeiture,  and  the 
other  to  punishment,  upon  proof  of  the  first  act  done  with  a 
fixed  hostile  intention  against  such  nation,  —  and  that  con- 
struction, hitherto  adopted  by  the  English  Government,  of 
the  same  law,  imposing  the  same  duties  ;  by  which  construc- 
tion the  obligation  to  arrest  the  vessel  is  confined  to  the  time 
when  she  shall  have  become  completely  equipped  and  armed, 
and  prepared  for  the  commission  of  immediate  hostilities,  ready 
to  slip  out  of  port  upon  any  false  pretence,  or  in  a  dark  ni'ght ; 
and  no  duty  is  acknowledged  of  interference,  even  then,  by 
the  voluntary  action  of  Government  officers,  nor  until  satisfac- 
tory proof  of  the  hostile  character  and  destination  of  the  ves- 
sel, in  authentic  form,  with  red-tape  precision,  shall  have  been 
obtained  by  the  neutral  stranger  in  her  land  (if  one  happens 
to  be  there  having  knowledge  of  the  facts),  and  presented  to 
them  with  a  respectful  craving  for  their  interference  ! 

How  wretchedly  abortive  any  such  system  must  be  as  to 
any  substantial  prevention  of  the  violation  of  neutral  rights  by 
a  nation,  whose  rulers,  and  portions  of  whose  people,  are  in 
sympathy  with  one  of  the  belligerents,  and  in  mental  hostility 
to  the  other,  would  need  no  proof,  even  if  experience  had  not 
so  signally  shown  it.  The  perfect  facility  with  which  the 
Rebels  have  obtained  in  England  mighty  ships  of  war  (openly 
built  for  their  service  by  men  in  high  public  stations,  boasting 
of  their  agency  in  the  business),  and  some  of  them  by  open 
subscriptions  by  her  merchants,  —  vessels  in  themselves 
powerful  engines  of  war,  without  further  arms,  but  entirely 
fitted  to  receive  great  armaments  (also  there  made  for  them, 
and  sent  out,  to  be  put  on  board  of  them,  in  vessels  under  the 
English  flag),  and  with  crews  consisting  mainly  of  English- 
men, enlisted  in  England  (or  who  had  agreed  there  to  enlist), 
and  taken  in  the  same  or  similar  vessels  to  the  place  of  rendez- 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  39 

vous ;  —  and  the  perfect  impunity,  not  only  from  legal  inter- 
ference, but  from  any  rebuke  in  public  opinion,  (if  not  indeed 
the  extensive  public  approbation  with  which  all  this  has  been 
done,)  —  will  constitute  a  conspicuous  page  in  history  upon 
England's  sense  of  neutral  faith  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  and  not  the  less  as  in  contrast  with  the  good 
faith  exhibited  by  the  United  States  towards  her,  in  her  hour 
of  need,  in  earlier  portions  of  it ;  to  say  nothing  of  her  seem- 
ing insensibility  to  the  duties  and  honorable  observance  of 
reciprocal  obligation. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Neutrality  Laws  of  England 
would  afford  a  perfectly  effectual  remedy  against  any  such 
violations,  or  intended  violations,  of  neutral  relations,  if  they 
should  be  administered  and  applied  in  the  manner  in  which 
precisely  similar  laws  always  have  been  and  arc  applied 
in  the  United  States. 

Another  very  important  English  statute,  bearing  upon  the 
subject  of  her  ability  to  protect  the  United  States  from  these 
piratical  plunderers  and  destroyers  (issuing  from  her  ports, 
and  furnished  with  their  crews  and  means  of  destruction  from 
her  workshops  and  naval  reserves),  if  she  had  the  disposition 
to  do  so,  is  the  Act  of  17  and  18  Victoria,  chap.  104,  being 
the  Merchants'  Shipping  Act,  which,  in  sect.  103,  provides  as 
follows :  — 

''  If  any  person  uses  the  Britisli  flag  and  assumes  the  British 
national  character  on  board  any  ship  owned  in  whole  or  in  part 
by  any  person  not  entitled  by  law  to  own  British  ships,  for 
the  purpose  of  making  such  ship  ap)pear  to  he  a  British  ship, 
such  ship  shall  he  forfeited  to  her  Majesty,  unless  such  as- 
sumption has  been  made  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  capture 
by  an  enemy  or  by  a  foreign  ship  of  war  in  exercise  of  some 
belligerent  right. 

"  And,  in  order  that  the  above  provisions  as  to  forfeitures 
may  be  carried  into  effect,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  commis- 
sioned officer  on  full  pay  in  the  military  or  navcd  service  of 


40  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OF 

her  ]\Iajesty,  or  any  British  officer  of  customs,  or  any  British 
consular  officer,  to  seize  and  detain  any  ship  which  has  either 
wholly,  or  as  to  any  share  therein,  become  subject  to  forfeiture 
as  aforesaid,  and  to  bring  her  for  adjudication  before  the 
High  Court  of  Admiralty,"  &c.,  &c. 

And  section  4  provides,  that  no  such  oflScer  shall  be  civilly 
or  criminally  liable  for  any  seizure  made  on  reasonable 
grounds. 

Now,  it  is  notorious  that  many,  if  not  most,  of  the  captures 
of  the  merchant  vessels  of  the  United  States  have  been  made 
by  the  rebel  privateers  under  the  British  flag,  used  to  decoy 
them  witliin  reach,  or  to  prevent  their  attempting  to  escape  ; 
and  that  in  some,  if  not  in  numerous,  cases  this  flag  has  been 
kept  flying,  not  only  when  guns  were  fired,  but  until  after  the 
capture  was  completed.  Yet  these  same  privateers  have 
entered  English  ports,  where  these  facts  cannot  but  be  well 
known,  and  perhaps  with  the  victims  of  their  deception  on 
board  ;  but,  instead  of  being  seized  and  brought  to  trial  by 
her  Majesty's  military  or  naval  ofiicers  on  full  pay,  or  her 
vigilant  officers  of  the  customs,  they  have  been  received  by 
them  with  military  and  naval  salutes,  and  their  officers  have 
been  feasted,  and  treated  with  the  most  distinguished  consid- 
eration,—  as  great  as  could  be  accorded  to  her  Majesty's  most 
friendly  allies.  These  vessels  are  still  liable  to  forfeiture  :  and 
greater  confidence  might  be  felt  in  England's  intention  to 
preserve  an  impartial  neutrality,  if,  instead  of  saluting,  feasting, 
and  complimenting  those  who  thus  abuse  her  flag  in  order  to 
entrap  the  citizens  of  a  friendly  nation  in  treaty  with  her,  she 
would  require  her  officers  to  administer  her  laws  made  for 
their  protection,  instead  of  thus  affiliating  with  the  violators 
of  those  laws.  It  may  be  a  serious  question  for  future  settle- 
ment, whether  the  implied  permission  of  such  prostitution 
of  tlie  English  flag  to  the  injury  of  a  friendly  nation,  deduci- 
ble  from  the  failure  to  enforce  her  own  laws  made  to  prevent 
it,  is  not  in  itself  a  just  cause  of  complaint  as  a  substantial 


ENGLAND    AND    Till]   UNITED    STATES.  41 

violation  of  tlie  impartial  neutrality  demanded  by  the  law  of 
nations. 

Having  thus  considered  the  law  of  nations,  and  the  muni- 
cipal laws  of  England  and  America,  touching  their  mutual 
relations  as  neutrals,  and  the  history  of  those  relations  up 
to  the  commencement  of  this  Rebellion,  it  remains  to  ex- 
amine the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  regarded  by 
England  in  this  struggle.  It  is  needful,  however,  to  premise 
another  important  law  of  nations,  which,  though  it  has  no 
peculiar  relation  to  neutrality,  is  important  in  its  application 
to  this  inquiry,  and  about  which  there  is  no  controversy ; 
namely,  that  the  flag  of  a  nation  extends  her  municipal  laws 
and  jurisdiction  wherever  it  lawfully  waves,  excepting  while 
within  the  territorial  jurisdiction  of  a  friendly  foreign  power : 
so  that  a  vessel  on  the  high  seas,  or  anywhere  not  within 
such  local  jurisdiction,  and  all  persons  and  things  on  board 
of  it,  are  under  the  government  and  protection  of  such 
municipal  laws  (unless  these  laws  be  in  terms  otherwise 
limited),  and  are  liable  to  punishment  or  forfeiture  for  any 
violation  of  them,  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  they 
would  be  if  the  vessel  were  in  one  of  her  harbors. 


29  August,  1863. 


42  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OP 


VI. 

THE   "  ALABAMA  "   AND   THE    "  GEORGIA." 

In  applying  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations  and  of  the 
Enlistment  Acts  to  the  transactions  upon  which  the  questions 
in  hand  arise,  it  is  proposed  to  pass  by  instances  of  unfriendly, 
not  to  say  hostile,  conduct  on  the  part  of  English  officials  in 
the  colonies  (who  are  rarely  known  to  exhibit  themselves 
in  any  manner  not  believed  to  be  acceptable  to  their  masters 
at  home),  and  to  confine  the  discussion  to  the  prominent  cases 
of  the  gunboats  the  "  Oreto,"  now  the  "Florida,"  the  "290," 
now  the  "Alabama,"  the  "Japan,"  now  the  "Georgia"  or 
"  Virginia,"  and  others  of  the  like  kind  ;  of  the  iron-plated,  tur- 
reted  Rams  in  process  of  construction ;  and  of  the  "Alexandra," 
now  on  trial ;  —  all  being  enterprises  originating  and  carried 
on  in  conspicuous  places  in  England,  and  under  the  immediate 
eyes  of  her  Ministers  of  State  and  of  her  naval  and  custom- 
house officers,  and  with  little  or  no  serious  attempt  at  con- 
cealment. 

Precise  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances  of  each  case 
cannot,  of  course,  be  expected,  as  enterprises  of  this  charac- 
ter are  always  under  greater  or  less  degrees  of  falsehood  and 
concealment  :  though,  in  the  cases  mentioned,  it  must  be 
admitted,  that  no  more  of  these  was  practised  than  some 
regard  for  decent  appearances  made  necessary ;  the  enter- 
prises seeming  to  be  in  popular  favor,  and  considered  unob- 
jectionable, to  say  the  least,  by  public  Ministers  and  officers, 
until  they  were  imperatively  called  upon  to  interfere. 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATES.  43 

The  most  conspicuous  of  tliese  cases,  and  the  ones  that 
constitute  the  best  test  of  the  doctrine  contended  for  in 
England,  are  those  of  the  "  Ahibama  "  and  the  "  Georgia ; " 
and,  fortunately,  about  tliem  the  facts  seem  to  be  indis- 
putable. 

The  "  Alabama,"  a  very  powerful  war-steamer,  was  built  by 
Mr.  Laird,  a  member  of  the  House  of  Commons,  at  Birkenhead, 
opposite  to  Liverpool,  on  a  contract  with  agents  or  officers  in 
the  rebel  service,  or  persons  perfectly  well  known  by  him  as 
designing  her  for  that  service.  It  was  commonly  reported 
(and  no  contradiction  is  known  to  have  been  made),  that  she 
was  built  in  part,  if  not  Avholly,  by  a  subscription  of  British 
merchants  and  capitalists. 

After  she  was  launched,  and  while  fitting  for  sea  in  the 
port  of  Liverpool,  the  American  Minister,  on  the  23d  of  June, 
called  the  attention  of  Earl  Russell  to  the  fact,  that  she  was 
believed  to  be  fitting  out  for  the  especial  and  manifest  object 
of  carrying  on  hostilities  by  sea,  and  was  to  be  commanded 
by  an  insurgent  agent.  On  the  25th,  Earl  Russell  referred 
the  matter  to  the  proper  department ;  and,  on  the  1st  of  July, 
the  commissioners  reported,  that  "  there  loas  no  attempt  on  the 
part  of  her  builders  to  disguise,  ivhat  loas  most  apparent, 
that  she  was  intended  for  a  vessel  of  war ;  "  ''  that  she  had 
several  poicder-canisters  on  hoard,^^  but,  "  as  yet,  neither  guns 
nor  carriages ; "  that  the  current  report  was,  "  that  she  had 
been  built  by  a  foreign  government,  which  was  not  denied  by 
THE  Messrs.  Laird,  but  that  they  did  not  appear  disposed  to 
reply  to  any  questions  respecting  the  destination  of  the  vessel 
after  she  should  leave  Liverpool ;  "  that  they,  the  commis- 
sioners, had  no  other  reliable  information ;  and  that,  having 
referred  the  matter  to  their  solicitor,  "  they  concurred  with 
him  in  opinion,  that  there  was  not  sufficient  ground  to  warrant 
the  detention  of  the  vessel,  or  any  interference  on  their  part." 
(Mess.  &  Doc.  1862-3,  pt.  i.  pp.  128-130.) 

Mr.  Adams  caused  further  evidence  to  be  collected,  and 


44  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OF 

procured  the  written  opinion  of  an  eminent  lawyer,  one  of 
the  Queen's  counsel,  (in  which  he  stated,  that  "  it  appeared 
difficult  to  make  out  a  stronger  case  of  infringement  of  the 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  which,  if  not  enforced  on  this  occa- 
sion, is  little  better  than  a  dead  letter,")  and  transmitted 
them  to  Earl  Russell,  again  urging  the  arrest  of  the  vessel. 
(Mess.  &  Doc.  18G2-3,  pt.  i.  pp.  149-153).  But,  before  any 
effort  to  arrest  her,  she  had  sailed.  The  delay  in  making  the 
arrest  was  attributed  to  a  sudden  malady  of  the  Queen's 
Advocate,  which  made  it  necessary  to  call  for  the  opinion  of 
other  persons ;  and  this  had  not  been  received  until  after  the 
vessel  had  departed.     (Mess.  &  Doc.  1862-3,  pt.  i.  p.  163.) 

Earl  Russell  afterwards  informed  Mr.  Adams,  that  orders  to 
arrest  her  had  been  sent  to  Queenstown  and  to  Nassau.  She 
took  good  care,  however,  not  to  go  to  either  of  those  places, 
and  NEVER  since  has  been  there ;  the  reasons  for  which,  until 
better  known,  may  well  be  imagined.  She  left  Liverpool  witli- 
out  any  register  or  clearance.  The  want  of  them  is  conclusive 
evidence  that  she  did  not  leave  England  as  a  British  vessel, 
or  as  entitled  or  designing  to  be  so  accounted  (however  largely 
British  merchants  or  capitalists  might  be  interested  in  her), 
but  as  in  the  service  of  a  foreign  government.  Off  Point 
Linas,  she  received  an  addition  to  her  crew  of  about  fifty  men 
from  an  English  vessel,  and  proceeded  directly  to  Terceira,  a 
Portuguese  island,  one  of  the  Azores.  She  was  there  joined 
by  the  British  barque  "  Agrippina,"  which  had  brought  from 
the  Thames  the  principal  part  of  her  guns  and  stores.  While 
these  were  transhipping  on  board  the  "  Alabama,"  the  Portu- 
guese authorities  interfered  to  prevent  such  an  abuse  of  a 
neutral  port,  but  were  told  that  the  "  Alabama  "  was  merely 
relieving  the  "  Agrippina,"  which  was  in  danger  of  sinking. 
Soon  afterwards,  the  English  steamer  "Bahama"  arrived  direct 
from  Liverpool,  whence  she  had  cleared  as  for  Nassau,  with 
Captain  Serames  and  fifty  additional  men,  and  the  residue  of 
the  guns  and  stores.     LTpon  this,  the  Portuguese  authorities 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATES.  45 

peremptorily  ordered  them  all  oil".  They  went  to  a  remote  and 
secluded  part  of  the  coast,  where  they  completed  the  tran- 
shipment. Captain  Semmes  then  took  command  of  the  "  Ala- 
bama," ran  up  the  rebel  flag  in  place  of  the  ensign  of  England 
(which  till  then  had  floated  over  her),  read  his  commission,  and 
hiunched  forth  on  his  cruise  for  the  plunder  and  destruction 
of  American  commerce.  The  case  of  the  "  Virginia,"  or 
"  Georgia,"  is  understood  to  be  substantially  similar,  except- 
ing that  the  place  of  rendezvous  was  at  some  agreed  point  ofl" 
the  coast  of  France. 

If  this  be  neutrality,  what  is  war,  or  complicity  in  war? 
If  an  English-built,  English-armed,  and  English-manned  vessel 
of  war  can  be  thus  furnished  to  a  belligerent  by  English 
subjects,  from  English  ports,  and  under  the  English  flag, 
fully  completed  for  her  work  of  devastation,  to  be  launched  at 
once  upon  the  commerce  of  a  friendly  nation  in  alliance  with 
England  (without  the  shi2)  or  the  arms  or  the  men  having  been 
in  any  other  than  English  ports,  or  under  any  other  controlling 
jurisdiction  than  that  of  the  English  flag') ,  and  not  be  accounted 
a  violation  of  the  laws  or  duties  of  neutralit}^,  what  is  neu- 
trality but  a  name  ?  or  what  such  pretended  neutrality  but 
war  in  disguise?  Far  better  would  it  be  for  the  honor  of 
England,  if  she  intends  to  maintain  this  position,  at  once  to 
abandon  the  pretence  of  neutrality,  and  avow  herself  the  ally 
of  the  insurgents ;  or  to  disclaim  it  as  a  national  obligation, 
and  abolish  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act 'from  her  Statute- 
book. 

Happily,  we  are  not  constrained  to  believe  that  such  a  doc- 
trine will  be  eventually  recognized  by  her  judicial  tribunals, 
or  her  honest  and  inteUigent  people,  however  apparently  sanc- 
tioned by  those  now  in  authority  in  her  national  councils,  or 
by  some  of  her  ship-builders,  merchants,  and  capitalists,  ready 
to  aid  in  the  plunder  and  destruction  of  the  commerce  of  a 
friendly  people,  and  to  endanger  the  peace  of  two  great 
nations,  if  only  it  be  for  a  valuable  consideration. 


46  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OF 

As  above  stated,  it  is  universally  conceded,  that  the  fitting- 
out  of  vessels  of  war  in  a  neutral  port,  for  hostilities  against  a 
friendly  belligerent,  is,  by  the  law  of  nations,  a  breach  of  neu- 
trality. If,  then,  the  "  Alabama"  had  sailed  from  Liverpool  in 
the  condition  in  which  she  left  the  coast  of  Terceira,  there 
could  be  no  question  that  such  a  violation  had  taken  place. 
But  it  is  contended,  that,  as  the  combination  of  the  arms,  am- 
munition, and  crew,  with  the  ship,  did  not  take  place  within 
any  port  of  her  Majesty's  kingdom  or  dominions,  the  case 
does  not  fall  within  the  law  of  nations  or  the  Foreign  Enlist- 
ment Act ;  and  Chief-Baron  Pollock,  in  pronouncing  judgment 
in  the  case  of  the  "  Alexandra,"  volunteered  the  opinion, 
that,  if  the  "  Alabama "  sailed  without  her  armament  and 
crew,  and  they  were  united  with  her  elsewhere,  she  would 
not  be  considered  as  within  the  provision  of  the  act.  It 
does  not  appear,  however,  that  the  learned  judge  had  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts,  and  of  the  inception  of  this  combination 
on  the  soil  of  England  in  the  manner  above  stated ;  or  that, 
upon  knowledge  of  them,  he  would  have  uttered  such  an 
opinion:  for  on  what  'principle  does  the  case,  as  it  stands, 
differ  from  that  which  would  have  been  presented  if  the  union 
had  taken  place  in  the  port  of  Liverpool  ?  Every  act  done, 
from  the  laying  of  her  keel  to  the  consummation  of  her  equip- 
ment as  a  ship  of  war  on  her  war  path,  was  commenced  in 
England,  on  English  soil ;  loas  inchoate  there;  and  only  com- 
pleted elsewhere  ;  'and,  even  there,  was  so  completed  under  the 
municipal  jurisdiction  of  her  national  flag.  The  intention  was 
formed  on  English  territory ;  the  essential  acts  of  building 
the  ship,  of  making  and  preparing  the  arms  and  ammunition, 
of  shipping  them,  and  of  engaging  the  crew,  were  cdl  done 
there;  and  the  transpoi'tation  to  the  place  of  union  was  the 
only  act  remaining  to  be  done. 

It  seems  trifling  with  all  sound  principles  of  jurisprudence 
and  good  faith  to  say,  that  deeds  of  this  description  were  not 
done  in  England  because  their  final  object  was  not  attained 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  47 

on  her  soil ;  though  even  that  was  attained  under  tlie  pro- 
tection of  her  flag.  If  the  combination  had  taken  place  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Mersey,  or  anywhere  one  foot  within  a 
line  three  miles  from  the  English  coast,  the  violation  of  neu- 
trality would  be  undeniable.  But  can  it  in  principle  make 
any  difference  (all  the  antecedents  and  the  hostile  intents  and 
objects  being  the  same,  and  all  the  acts  designed  for  the 
end  being  thus  in  process  of  completion,  and  with  no  inter- 
vening foreign  jurisdiction),  whether  it  be  made  a  few  feet 
within,  or  a  few  feet  without,  that  line  ?  And,  if  not,  what 
real  difference  can  the  addition  of  a  few  miles  make,  no  foreign 
jurisdiction  intervening  ? 

But  it  is  not  upon  general  principles  only,  however  obvious, 
that  the  decision  of  this  question  must  depend,  nor  upon  any 
judicial  judgment  which  England  can  ignore.  Her  greatest 
judge.  Sir  William  Scott,  the  pre-eminent  expounder  of  the 
law  of  nations  in  its  application  to  maritime  cases,  whom  all 
the  world  holds  in  respect,  has  determined  it  in  the  case 
alluded  to  in  the  second  of  these  articles  (pp.  7,  8);  in  which 
case  it  was  decided,  that  a  capture  on  the  high  seas  of  a 
vessel  belonging  to  a  friendly  belligerent,  made  by  the  boats 
of  her  enemy  from  a  cruiser  lying  within  neutral  territory, 
was  illegal  and  void,  as  constituting  a  breach  of  neutrality. 
(^Tioee  Gebroeders,  3  Robinson's  Rep.  162.) 

In  that  case,  four  Dutch  ships  had  been  captured  by  the 
boats  of  a  man-of-war  of  the  enemy,  lying  within  the  territorial 
limits  of  Prussia ;  and  the  Prussian  consul  claimed  restitution, 
on  a  suggestion  that  it  was  a  capture  made  within  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Prussian  territory  :  he  contending,  that  although 
the  act  of  capture  itself  might  not  take  place  within  the  neu- 
tral territory,  yet  that  the  ship  to  which  the  capturing  boats 
belonged  was  actually  lying  within  the  neutral  limits  ;  and 
therefore,  that,  wherever  the  place  of  capture  might  be,  the 
station  of  the  ship  was  in  itself  sufficient  to  affect  the  legality 
of  the  capture. 


48  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

The  opiniou  of  that  great  judge  is  in  language  so  explicit 
and  comprehensive,  so  remarkably  pertinent,  to  the  case 
under  consideration,  and  so  instructive,  that  it  must  be  given 
in  full ;  although  the  doing  so  may  seem  to  extend  this  article 
to  an  otherwise  unreasonable  length. 

"  It  is  said  that  the  ship  was,  in  all  respects,  observant  of 
the  peace  of  the  neutral  territory  ;  that  nothing  was  done  by 
her,  which  could  affect  the  right  of  territory,  or  from  which 
any  inconvenience  could  arise  to  the  country  within  whose 
limits  she  was  lying,  inasmuch  as  the  hostile  force  which  she 
employed  was  applied  to  the  captured  vessel  lying  out  of  the 
territory.  But  that  is  a  doctrine  that  goes  a  great  deal  too 
far.  I  am  of  opinion,  that  no  use  of  a  neutral  territory  for 
the  purposes  of  war  is  to  be  permitted.  I  do  not  say,  remote 
uses,  such  as  procuring  provisions  and  refreshments,  and  acts 
of  that  nature,  which  the  law  of  nations  universal)}^  tolerates  ; 
but  that  no  proximate  acts  of  war  are  in  any  manner  to  be 
allowed  to  originate  on  neutral  ground :  and  I  cannot  but 
think  that  such  an  act  as  this,  that  a  ship  should  station  her- 
self on  neutral  territory,  and  send  out  her  boats  on  hostile 
enterprises,  is  an  act  of  hostility  much  too  immediate  to  be 
permitted.  For,  suppose  that  even  a  direct  Jiostile  use  should 
be  required  to  bring  it  within  the  prohibition  of  the  law  of 
nations :  nobody  will  say  that  the  very  act  of  sending  out 
boats  to  effect  a  capture  is  not  itself  an  act  directly  hostile, — 
not  complete  indeed,  but  inchoate,  and  clothed  with  all  the 
characters  of  hostility.  If  this  could  be  defended,  it  might  as 
well  be  said,  that  a  ship  lying  in  a  neutral  station  might  fire 
shot  on  a  vessel  lying  out  of  the  neutral  territory.  The 
injury,  in  that  case,  would  not  be  consummated,  nor  received 
on  neutral  ground ;  but  no  one  would  say  that  such  an  act 
would  not  be  an  hostile  act,  immediately  commenced  within 
the  neutral  territory.  And  what  does  it  signify  to  the  nature 
of  the  act,  considered  for  the  present  purpose,  whether  I 
send  out  a  cannon-shot  which  shall  compel  the  submission  of 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  49 

a  vessel  lying  at  two  miles'  distance,  or  whether  I  send  out  a 
boat  armed  and  manned  to  effect  the  very  same  thing  at  the 
same  distance  ?  It  is,  in  both  cases,  the  direct  act  of  the 
vessel  lying  in  neutral  ground.  The  act  of  hostility  actually 
begins,  in  the  latter  case,  with  the  launching  and  manning 
and  arming  the  boat,  that  is  sent  out  on  such  an  errand  of 
force. 

"  If  it  were  necessary,  therefore,  to  prove  that  a  direct  and 
immediate  act  of  hostility  had  been  committed,  I  should  be 
disposed  to  hold,  that  it  was  sufficiently  made  out  by  the  facts 
of  this  case.  But  direct  hostility  appears  not  to  be  neces- 
sary ;  for  whatever  has  an  immediate  connection  with  it  is 
forbidden.  You  cannot,  without  leave,  car;y  prisoners  or 
booty  into  a  neutral  territory,  there  to  be  detained,  because 
such  an  act  is  an  immediate  continuation  of  hostility.  In  the 
same  manner,  an  act  of  hostility  is  not  to  take  its  commence- 
ment on  neutral  ground.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say,  it  is  not 
completed  there.  You  are  not  to  take  any  measure  there 
that  shall  lead  to  immediate  violence  ;  you  are  not  to  avail 
yourself  of  a  station  on  neutral  territory,  making,  as  it  were, 
a  vantage-ground  of  the  neutral  country,  —  a  country  which 
is  to  carry  itself  with  perfect  equality  between  both  bellige- 
rents, giving  neither  the  one  or  the  other  any  advantage."  * 

Now,  the  fitting-out  of  a  vessel  of  war,  to  be  used  in  hos- 
tilities against  another  nation,  is  confessedly  a  breach  of 
neutrality,  because  virtually  an  act  of  war.  And  if,  as  this 
case  decides,  "  no  'proximate  acts  of  war  are  in  any  manner 
to  he  allowed  to  originate  on  neutral  ground,"  by  what  logic 
can  it  be  argued,  that  the  inception  and  entire  preparation  of 
cdl  the  elements  of  a  ship  of  war  on  neutral  ground,  and  the 
sending  them  forth  under  the  neutral  flag,  to  he  united  on 
the  high  seas,  for  the  immediate  prosecution  of  hostilities,  are 
not  proximate  acts  of  war  so  originating  ?     And  if  sending 

•  The  Italics,  in  this  Opinion,  are  by  the  Court. 

7 


50  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

out  boats  to  effect  a  capture  beyond  the  territorial  limits  is 
"  in  itself  an  act  directly  hostile  (not  complete  indeed,  hut 
inchoate,  and  clothed  with  all  the  characters  of  hostility  "),  how- 
can  it  be  maintained,  that  sending  out  a  vessel  entirely  pre- 
pared to  receive  all  her  implements  and  means  for  war,  and 
the  sending  of  these  in  other  vessels,  to  be  united  at  a  given 
place  on  the  high  seas,  there  to  be  employed  at  once  in  hostili- 
ties, are  not  ''  inchoate  acts,  clothed  with  all  the  characters  of 
hostility"  ?  If  the  vessel  herself  were,  by  means  of  her  con- 
struction, enabled  to  commit  hostilities,  and  should  commit 
them  on  her  way  to  the  place  of  rendezvous,  or  if  the  vessels, 
each  carrying  a  portion  of  her  intended  armament,  were  so  to 
commit  them, — »in  pursuance  of  a  previous  intention  so  to  do, 
if  opportunity  should  occur,  —  each  case  would  be  one  of 
undeniable  breach  of  neutrality.  And  how  can  their  doing 
so  in  combination  on  the  high  seas,  in  pursuance  of  such 
intention,  be  any  the  less  a  violation  of  it?  The  illustra- 
tion of  the  shot  fired  from  a  ship  in  a  neutral  station,  upon 
a  vessel  lying  outside,  is  so  perfectly  in  point,  that  further 
illustration  seems  entirely  superfluous. 

But  the  great  doctrine  of  this  case  goes  far  beyond  what  is 
necessary  to  prove,  that  the  finishing  of  these  vessels  was  an 
undeniable  breach  of  neutrality.  The  Court,  after  deciding 
that  the  transaction  complained  of  was  a  direct  and  immediate 
act  of  hostility,  if  that  were  necessary  to  be  proved,  pro- 
ceeds to  decide,  that  "  direct  hostility  appears  not  to  he  neces- 
sary, for  luhatever  has  an  immediate  connection  with  it  is 
forbidden ;  "  and  that  "  an  act  of  hostility  is  not  to  take  its  com- 
mencement on  neutral  ground.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say,  it 
is  not  completed  there.  You  are  not  to  take  any  measure 
there  that  shall  lead  to  immediate  violence."  If,  then,  the 
fitting-out  of  a  ship  of  war  in  a  neutral  port  is  confessedly 
a  violation  of  neutrality,  surely  the  building  of  her,  and  the 
making  and  supplying  of  her  arms  and  munitions  of  war, 
and  the  engaging  of  her  crew  there,  and  shipping  them  there, 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  51 

to  be  taken  to  her,  must  constitute  a  couimencement  of  it. 
It  falls,  indeed,  very  little  short  of  a  perfect  consummation 
of  it ;  and  all  the  acts  are  measures  intended  for,  and  so 
leading  to,  immediate  violence.  If  any  one  of  these  vessels 
had  sailed  from  Liverpool  fully  armed  and  equipped,  but 
with  no  intention  to  commit  hostilities  until  after  reaching 
the  longitude  and  latitude  of  the  appointed  place  of  rendez- 
vous on  the  high  seas,  such  postponement  of  the  intention 
could  not  relievo  her  from  the  charge  of  a  breach  of  neu- 
trality when  she  sailed.  And  what  difference  can  it  make, 
whether  she  arrived  there  thus  equipped,  or  under  an  ar- 
rangement to  receive  her  equipment,  also  made  in  England, 
and  sent  out  in  English  vessels,  to  join  her  there,  and  there 
to  commence  hostilities  ?  The  intent,  the  purpose,  and  the 
consequences  are  precisely  the  same  in  both  cases. 

The  Court,  in  pronouncing  the  opinion  in  that  case,  pro- 
ceeded to  say,  "  You  are  not  to  avail  yourself  of  a  station  on 
neutral  territory,  making,  as  it  ivere,  a  vantage-ground  of  the 
neutral  country,  —  a  country  which  is  to  carry  itself  with 
perfect  equality  between  both  belligerents,  giving  neither 
the  one  or  the  other  any  advantage."  If  the  Ministers  and 
judicial  tribunals  of  England  were  under  the  inspiration  of 
such  doctrines  as  these,  we  should  have  less  cause  for  present 
complaint  or  future  apprehension. 

3  September,  1863. 


52  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OP 


VII. 

THE   "ALABAMA,"    THE   "  GEORGfIA,"    AND   THE   "FLORIDA." 

The  cases  of  the  "  Alabama  "  and  the  "  Georgia  "  have  thus 
far  been  considered  by  themselves,  because  of  the  peculiar 
circumstances  bj  which  they  are  distinguished  (as  being 
completely  equipped  ships  of  war  while  under  English  juris- 
diction), and  which,  independently  of  the  principles  and 
arguments  applicable  to  the  cases  of  the  "  Florida "  and 
the  "Alexandra,"  constitute  them,  as  is  believed,  palpable 
breaches  of  neutrality,  not  only  according  to  American  decis- 
ions, but  to  a  leading  one  in  England,  and  to  the  most  obvious 
application  of  familiar  rules  of  the  law  of  nations.  It  is  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  however,  that  they  fall  still  more  clearly  within 
the  principles  and  rules  (now  to  be  considered)  applicable 
to  the  case  of  the  "  Florida,"  the  facts  of  which  seem,  upon 
first  impression,  of  a  less  decisive  character ;  and  that  the 
same  reasoning  which  leads  to  the  conviction,  that  the  latter 
presents  an  instance  of  breach  of  neutrality,  would,  a  fortiori, 
prove  the  former  to  do  so. 

The  facts  about  the  "  Florida  "  are  somewhat  obscure,  she 
being  the  first  privateer  furnished  to  the  rebels,  and  more 
concealment  having  been  practised  concerning  her  than  seems 
to  have  been  thought  necessary  in  subsequent  similar  under- 
takings. Enough  are  known,  however,  to  be  the  subject  of  a 
clear  application  of  the  law  of  nations  and  of  the  Foreign 
Enlistment  Act,  upon  the  principles  and  rules  of  law  which 
are  recognized  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  and  the 


ENGLAND    AND    TIIK    UNITED    STATES.  53 

benefit  of  which  in  former  times,  when  England  was  tlie  l^el- 
ligerent  and  America  tlie  neutral,  the  British  Government 
claimed  of  the  United  States. 

This  vessel,  the  "  Florida,"  was  built  in  Liverpool  as  a 
gunboat,  or  vessel  of  war,  for  the  rebel  service,  pierced 
for  six  guns,  and  completely  fitted  in  that  port,  as  a  vessel 
of  war,  for  the  reception  of  her  armament,  munitions,  and 
crew,  under  the  name  of  the  "  Oreto."  She  lay  there  for 
some  time,  her  character  and  destination  as  a  rebel  privateer 
being  matters  of  public  notoriety;  when,  the  American  Minis- 
ter having  called  attention  to  her  as  a  vessel  designed  for 
hostilities  against  the  United  States,  an  inquiry  was  ordered, 
which  terminated,  however,  in  a  report  which  indicates  it  to 
have  been  a  miserable  sham.  She  cleared  for  Palermo  and 
Jamaica  with  a  crew  of  fifty-two  or  fifty  four  men,  but  sailed 
directly  to  Nassau,  an  English  colonial  port  in  the  West  Indies. 
Whether  she  had  taken  in  her  armament  and  cargo  on  the 
English  coast  before  she  arrived  at  Nassau,  or  received  them 
there,  is  uncertain,  the  evidence  being  conflicting.  The  col- 
lector at  Liverpool  represented,  in  his  written  answer  to  the 
inquiry  ordered,  that  it  was  reported  that  she  was  to  receive 
her  armament  at  Nassau,  where  it  had  been  sent  in  another 
vessel ;  thus  indicating  the  general,  not  to  say  official,  knowl- 
edge of  her  character  and  destination. 

She  arrived  at  Nassau,  and  was  temporarily  arrested ;  but 
soon  sailed  with  her  armament  and  a  cargo  of  munitions  of 
war  for  Mobile ;  which  port  she  succeeded  in  entering,  and 
from  which  she  afterwards  emerged  upon  the  career  of  devas- 
tation in  which  she  has  been  so  signally  successful.  When 
she  changed  her  name,  or  the  commander  received  or  read 
his  commission  on  board,  does  not  appear ;  nor  is  the  time  of 
either  material,  as  will  presently  appear. 

The  main  facts  in  this  case,  material  for  immediate  consid- 
eration, are,  that  she  was  built  in  England  as  a  vessel  of  war 
for  the  rebel  service,  and  sailed  from  the  coast  of  England,  or 


54  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OP 

from  one  of  her  colonial  ports,  armed  and  wholly  or  in  part 
manned  as  a  privateer,  for  a  rebel  port ;  whence,  after  having 
landed  there  a  cargo  of  munitions  of  war,  she  sailed  on  her 
cruise. 

The  prominent  facts  in  each  of  the  cases  of  the  "Alabama," 
the  "  Georgia,"  and  the  "  Florida,"  appear  to  bring  it  so 
clearly  within  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  Foreign  Enlist- 
ment Act  and  the  law  of  nations,  as  a  gross  breach  of  neu- 
trality, that  it  seems  superfluous  to  adduce  further  argument 
in  illustration  of  this. 

If  the  persons  who  built  these  vessels,  or  procured  them 
to  be  built,  in  England,  and  to  be  fitted  in  all  points  for  sea 
as  ships  of  war  (excepting  their  armaments  and  crews),  in- 
tending them  for  the  rebel  service  ;  who  procured  their 
armaments  and  munitions  of  war  there,  and  engaged  their 
crews  there,  in  whole  or  in  part,  with  the  above  intent ;  and 
who  then  united  them  on  the  high  seas,  while  still  under  the 
English  flag,  to  launch  instantly  upon  their  hostile  expedi- 
tions, —  were  not  persons  who,  within  any  part  of  her  Majes- 
ty's dominions,  "  equipped,  furnished,  fitted  out,  or  armed," 
li  QY  procured  to  be  equipped,  furnished,  fitted  out,  or  armed," 
"  or  aided,  or  assisted,  or  were  concerned  in,  the  equipping, 
furnishing,  fitting  out,  or  arming,  of  any  ship  or  vessel,  with 
the  intent  or  in  order  that  sucli  ship  or  vessel  should  be  em- 
ployed in  the  service  "  of  a  foreign  power,  "  with  intent  to 
cruise  and  commit  hostilities  "  against  any  other  power,  with 
which  "  her  Majesty  was  not  then  at  war,"  —  then  it  would 
seem  difiicult,  if  not  impossible,  to  frame  any  description  that 
would  embrace  them,  and  the  Statute  would  seem  little  bet- 
ter than  a  worthless,  empty  pretence. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that,  in  the  American  Statute,  the 
words  are,  ''  fitted  out  and  armed,"  and  "  fitting  out  and 
arming,"  &c.  ;  and  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  the 
substitution  of  the  word  "  or "  for  the  word  ''  and  "  in  this 
passage  in  the  English   statute,  which  was  enacted  subse- 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  55 

qnently  to  that  of  the  United  States,  was  intended  to  obviate 
any  construction  requiring  both  fitting  out  and  arming. 

As  before  remarked,  in  the  Court  of  the  United  States  it 
has  been  emphatically  decided,  not  only  that  the  vessel  need 
not  be  completed,  or  armed,  or  prepared  for  war,  within  the 
territory  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  constitute  an  in- 
fraction of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  but  that,  if  she  sailed 
ivitJwut  being  armed,  or  at  all  prepared  for  loar,  and  in  no 
condition  to  commit  hostilities  while  on  her  way  to  her  ])ort  of 
destination,  the  owners  or  equippers  intending,  when  she 
sailed,  that  she  should  thereafter  be  employed  as  a  privateer 
in  the  service  of  a  foreign  people  to  commit  hostilities 
against  the  subjects  qf  a  power  at  peace  with  the  United 
States,  it  constituted  a  violation  of  the  statute.  Under  this 
decision,  it  is  manifest  that  any  one  of  the  three  vessels  above 
named  would  be  adjudged  guilty  of  such  a  violation  at  the 
moment  of  sailing,  even  though  she  should  not  have  a  gun  or 
any  fighting  crew  on  board,  nor  intend  nor  expect  to  procure 
any  until  after  arrival  at  a  Confederate  port. 

But  we  are  not  obliged  to  rest  on  American  decisions  only; 
for  (although  none  upon  this  point  appear  to  have  been 
made  in  the  courts  of  England  until  the  recent  one  in  the 
case  of  the  "  Alexandra,"  from  which  an  appeal  has  been 
taken,  and  which,  therefore,  is  of  no  present  authority)  the 
political  history  of  England  upon  the  subject  (referred  to  in 
the  Third  Number  of  this  series  of  papers),  and  the  recent 
conduct  and  language  of  her  Ministers,  seem  to  show  a  simi- 
larity of  construction  of  the  law  and  of  neutral  duties  under 
the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act.  And,  as  these  questions  pertain 
quite  as  much  to  the  domain  of  politics  as  to  that  of  judicial 
decision,  the  practice  of  the  Government  may  well  be  ac- 
counted a  satisfactory  exponent  of  the  doctrine  by  which 
they  are  to  be  solved,  and  especially  so  where  such  practice 
has  been  coincident  in  the  two  nations  between  which  the 
questions  arise. 


56  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS    OF 

Now,  from  this  history  we  learn,  that,  as  far  back  as  the 
years  1793-94,  England  invoked  the  interposition  of  our 
National  Government  to  prevent  the  fitting-out  of  privateers 
for  the  service  of  France  in  the  war  then  pending  between 
them ;  that  our  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  was  passed  in  con- 
sequence of  that  application,  in  order  to  enable  our  Govern- 
ment faithfully  to  fulfil  our  neutral  obligations  (which  Act, 
subsequently  amended,  was  afterwards  adopted  almost  verba- 
tim by  England,  showing  an  entire  similarity  in  the  views  of 
the  two  Governments  upon  the  subject)  ;  and  that  England, 
in  1854—55,  wlie^i  at  war  with  Russia,  claimed  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  the  application  of  her  Enlistment 
Act  in  accordance  with  the  construction  put  upon  it  by  the 
courts  of  the  United  States,  and  this  to  a  merchant  vessel,  not 
built  for  war,  nor  armed,  nor  equipped,  nor  in  process  of  being 
ftted  out,  as  one,  any  further  than  being  supposed  to  have  taken 
a  few  guns  into  her  hold ;  thus  showing,  that,  up  to  that 
period,  England  understood  neutral  obligations  and  duties 
under  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  precisely  as  they  had  been 
always  understood  and  practised  in  America. 

And,  in  these  very  cases  of  the  "  Florida  "  and  "  Alabama," 
we  find  that  the  English  Government,  acting  under  the  ad- 
vice of  its  professional  counsel,  gave  orders  for  the  arrest  of 
the  one  in  Nassau,  and  the  other  in  Liverpool  (though  too 
late  to  be  of  service)  ;  thus  proving,  that  it  is  not,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  law-officers  of  the  Crown,  essential  that  the 
vessel  should  be  fitted  out,  equipped,  and  armed  before  leav- 
ing port,  in  order  to  bring  her  within  the  provisions  of  the 
act. 

Now,  upon  these  facts  and  these  principles  of  law,  we 
maintain,  that  each  of  the  vessels  was,  and,  ever  since  she 
left  England,  has  continued  to  be,  and  now  is,  subject  to 
seizure  and  confiscation  for  violation  of  the  law  of  nations  and 
of  the  English  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  in  every  port  within 
her  territorial  jurisdiction  in  which  such  vessel  has  been,  or 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  57 

now  is,  or  in  which  she  may  arrive,  unless  exempted  by  the 
limitation  contained  in  the  10th  section. 

It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind,  that,  in  order  to  prove  a 
vessel  subject  to  forfeiture,  it  is  not  necessary  to  convict  the 
builder,  or  the  party  fitting  out  and  arming  her,  of  any  viola- 
tion of  the  Act ;  for,  if  each  of  the  parties  thus  concerned  could 
be  shoAvn  to  be  innocent  of  intending  her  use  in  hostilities 
against  the  friendly  belligerent,  and  to  have  furnished  or 
executed  his  portion  of  the  work  as  a  fair  mercantile  trans- 
action, untainted  with  any  such  design, —  nevertheless,  if  the 
parties  for  whom  the  work  was  done  or  the  materials  were 
furnished,  or  if  those  who  owned  her  when  she  was  about  to 
sail  from  England,  had  such  intention,  the  crime  attached  to  the 
vessel,  and  she  became  subject  to  forfeiture  as  if  herself  guilty 
of  it.  If,  therefore,  it  could  be  shown  that  Laird,  the  builder 
of  the  "  Alabama,"  and  Miller  and  Sons,  the  builders  of  the 
"  Florida,"  and  Fawcett  and  Co.,  the  engineers  and  iron-found- 
ers who  furnished  their  engines  and  guns,  were  innocent  of 
any  intention  to  have  these  vessels  used  in  hostilities  against 
the  United  States,  the  use  actually  made  of  them  would  con- 
clusively prove  that  the  owners  for  whom  they  were  built  and 
armed  had  that  design,  and  it  would  thus  render  the  vessels 
subject  to  forfeiture  at  the  time  of  sailing,  although  the  real 
owners  might  never  be  discovered. 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  contended,  that,  if  these  vessels 
were  guilty  of  breaches  of  neutrality  when  starting  upon 
their  respective  cruises,  which  might  have  subjected  them 
to  forfeiture  if  seized  at  that  time,  yet  the  offences  Avere 
deposited  at  the  end  of  those  first  cruises  ;  and,  conse- 
quently, that  they  ever  since  have  been,  and  are  now, 
exempted  from  any  such  liability. 

To  this,  however,  it  seems  a  satisfactory  answer  to  say, 
that,  in  the  cases  of  the  "  Alabama  "  and  the  ''  Georgia,"  wliich 
have  never  entered  any  rebel  port,  nor  been  within  any  terri- 
tory under  the  rebel  jurisdiction,  the  cruises  upon  which  they 


58  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OF 

orio-inally  started  have  never  ended  or  been  so  terminated. 
All  their  entries  into  neutral  ports  have  been  for  brief  and 
temporary  purposes,  for  supplies  and  refreshment,  to  enable 
them  to  continue  their  cruises;  and  they  have  never  been 
in  any  port  with  any  design  of  such  termination.  If  insur- 
ance had  been  effected  (as  probably  was  done  by  some  of 
the  British  owners)  on  either  vessel  when  she  sailed,  "  during 
her  cruise,''^  or  ''  during  the  cruise  on  which  she  is  about  to 
sail,"  it  is  obvious  that  such  temporary  resorts  to  neutral 
ports  for  refreshment  or  repairs  could  not  be  accounted  any 
termination  of  it. 

In  the  case  of  the  "  Florida,"  this  point,  however,  might  be 
made  with  more  appearance  of  reason  by  claiming  that  her 
first  voyage  had  terminated  at  Mobile,  where,  as  is  supposed, 
her  name  was  changed,  and  her  character  as  a  privateer 
openly  avowed.  But,  as  she  was  tainted  with  the  intention 
of  crime  when  she  sailed  from  Liverpool  and  Nassau,  and 
went  to  Mobile,  not  for  the  purpose  of  terminating  that 
oifence,  but  merely  to  land  her  cargo,  and  to  acquire  more 
effectual  means  for  its  perpetration,  such  temporary  delay, 
or  rather  interposition  of  a  port,  for  obtaining  greater  effi- 
ciency, ought  not  in  principle  to  be  accounted  any  depositing 
of  the  original  defence. 

Happily  this  point  is  not  left  in  doubt,  if  the  decisions  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon  this  branch 
of  national  law  are  entitled  to  the  respect  and  confidence 
professed  for  them  abroad  as  well  as  at  home.  It  was  the 
main  point  in  the  case  of  the  "  Gran  Para  "  (7  Wheat.  Rep.  471) 
above  cited  (No.  IV.,  pp.  29-31,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred), 
in  which  the  facts  were  more  favorable  for  such  a  defence  than 
those  of  the  "  Florida  ;  "  and  in  which  the  Court,  in  passing 
judgment  upon  it,  used  the  indignant  language  before  quoted, 
that  the  doctrine,  that  the  vessel  could  be  thus  ''  purified 
from  every  taint  contracted  at  the  place  where  all  her  real 
force    and    capacity    for    annoyance    were    acquired,    would 


.  ENGLAND   AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  59 

indeed  be  a  fraudulent  neutrality,  disgraceful  to  our  own 
Government,  and  of  which  no  nation  luould  he  the  dupe." 

This  case  is  also  directly  decisive  of  the  point,  if  should  it 
be  made,  as  above  suggested,  in  behalf  of  the  "Alabama  "  and 
the  "  Georgia,"  and  if  it  be  thought  deserving  of  further  con- 
sideration than  has  already  been  given  to  it. 

If,  then,  those  vessels  are  privateers  only,  it  is  not  per- 
ceived why  the  English  Government  has  not  a  perfect  right 
to  seize  and  confiscate  them  whenever  they  come  within  her 
jurisdiction.  What  may  be  her  obligations  to  do  so,  will 
presently  be  considered. 

5  September,  1863. 


GO  NEUTRAL  RELATIONS  OP 


VIII. 


England's  position  in  relation  to  the  rebel  privateers, 
or  ships  of  war,  and  the  suppression  of  their  depre- 
DATIONS. 

But  it  may  be  contended,  that  if  these  vessels,  when  priva- 
teers only,  are  thus  subject  to  seizure  and  confiscation  in  any 
British  port  in  which  they  may  be  or  arrive,  yet,  if  any  one 
of  them  is  sailing  under  a  commission  from  the  rebel  authori- 
ties as  a  public  or  national  ship,  she  is  exempt,  the  insur- 
gents having  been  acknowledged  as  a  national  belligerent. 

It  is  true,  that,  in  the  intercourse  of  nations,  a  distinction 
exists  between  public  and  private  ships  of  war,  in  regard  to 
the  consideration  to  be  given  to  them  by  foreign  governments 
when  within  their  respective  local  jurisdictions.  This  point, 
also,  was  raised  and  passed  upon  by  the  Court  in  the  prolific 
case  of  the  "  Santissima  Trinidad,"  among  the  many  other  points 
not  material  for  the  decision  of  the  case.  The  capturing  ves- 
sel had  been  sent  out  to  Buenos  Ayres  for  sale,  as  a  mercan- 
tile adventure,  and  purchased  of  the  original  vendees  by  the 
Brazilian  Government.  But  no  bill  of  sale  to  the  latter  was 
produced ;  and  the  question  raised,  principally  upon  that  de- 
fect in  the  evidence,  was,  whether,  notwithstanding  this  defect 
of  proof,  her  character  as  a  public  ship  was  established  by 
the  production  of  her  commission  as  one.  The  Court  ruled 
that  it  was  so ;  —  "  that,  in  general,  the  commission  of  a  public 
ship,  signed  by  the  proper  authorities  of  the  nation  to  which 
she  belongs,  is  complete  proof  of  her  national  character ;  "  — 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  Gl 

that,  "  SO  far  at  least  as  foreij^n  courts  are  concerned,  it  imports 
absolute  verity,  and  the  title  is  not  examinable;"  —  and  that 
"the  property  must  be  taken  to  be  duly  acquired,  and  cannot 
be  controverted,"  this  being  "  a  rule  founded  in  public  con- 
venience and  policy."  And,  upon  the  facts  in  that  case,  the 
rule,  and  the  application  of  it,  seem  alike  reasonable,  —  it  being 
one  in  which  no  question  existed,  between  the  neutral  and  the 
belligerent,  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  the  title  by  reason  of  any  vio. 
lotion  of  the  laws  of  the  neutral  in  obtaining  it,  but  only  a  ques- 
tion between  the  belligerent  claimant  and  the  captor  upon  the 
technical  form  of  proof.  But  it  surely  would  be  carrying  this 
doctrine  altogether  too  far,  to  maintain  that  it  binds  the  neu- 
tral nation  to  respect  a  title  because  so  vouched,  when  it  was 
obtained  by  the  captor  in  gross  violation  of  her  own  laws,  or 
in  defiance  of  her  obligations  to  the  other  belligerent,  expos- 
ing her  to  complaint  or  reclamation ;  and  still  more  so,  when 
such  violation  and  exposure  were  not  by  a  merely  temporary 
intrusion  upon  her  territory,  and  when  not  the  title  only,  but 
the  whole  ship,  armament,  and  crew,  were  procured  by  an  un- 
lawful appropriation  of  her  military  resources  and  an  illegal 
tampering  with  her  own  subjects.  If  the  vessel,  for  which 
sanctity  of  title  as  a  public  ship  was  thus  claimed,  had  been 
one  belonging  to  the  neutral,  forcibly  taken  on  the  high  seas, 
to  be  converted  into  such  foreign  public  ship  under  a  commis, 
sion  in  the  hands  of  the  captor,  and  had  afterwards  arrived  in 
one  of  her  ports,  whether  by  choice  or  necessity,  it  would 
seem  absurd  to  contend  that  the  neutral  was  precluded  from 
reclaiming  it  because  the  commission  was  conclusive  proof 
that  the  title  had  been  lawfully  obtained.  And  it  is  not  per- 
ceived why  the  same  reasons  do  not  apply  with  equal  force 
to  denial  of  the  right  of  a  neutral  to  confiscate  a  vessel,  to 
which  the  belligerent,  claiming  it,  could  have  no  title  but  tliat 
acquired  by  contravention,  and  in  fraud,  of  her  own  laws  and 
of  her  obligations  to  other  parties,  —  the  breach  of  which 
laws  attached  to  the  vessel  the  ri^-ht  of  confiscation  from  her 


62  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

birth.  Surely,  to  carry  this  doctrine  of  the  inviolability  of  a 
commission,  as  proof  of  title,  to  such  an  extent,  would  be  to 
convert  a  rule,  founded  in  the  comity  of  nations,  upon  the 
basis  of  mutual  regard,  and  of  the  understood  reciprocal  ob- 
servance of  their  respective  duties  and  obligations,  into  a 
shield  for  the  violation  of  those  duties,  and  for  the  perpetra- 
tion of  offences  derogatory  alike  to  the  dignity  and  the  safety 
of  the  neutral  thus  called  upon  to  obey  it. 

This  reasoning,  if  correct,  also  disposes  of  another  objec- 
tion which  might  occur,  founded  on  the  rule,  that  a  public  ship 
is  exempted  from  the  local  jurisdiction  of  other  nations ;  for 
if  she  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  one,  so  as  to  exempt  the  alleged 
title  to  her  from  investigation,  such  question  must  be  tried 
in  the  local  courts  of  the  neutral. 

But  if  this  doctrine  be  not  maintainable  to  the  extent  of 
giving  the  judicial  tribunals  of  a  neutral  nation  jurisdiction 
over  a  national  ship  of  war,  or  one  entitled  to  similar  privi- 
leges, under  such  circumstances,  nevertheless,  as  this  exemp- 
tion from  the  local  jurisdiction  of  any  sovereign  power  is 
founded  wholly  on  the  implied  consent  of  such  power  to  such 
exemption,  it  may  be  revoked  or  rescinded  for  good  cause  at 
any  time ;  and  surely  no  better  cause  could  be  assigned  or 
imagined  for  its  revocation,  than  that  the  ships  in  question 
had  been  obtained  in  violation,  not  only  of  the  rights  and  of 
the  municipal  laws  of  such  power,  and  in  derogation  of  her 
majesty,  and  to  the  endangerment  of  her  peace  with  another 
nation,  but  were  also  persistently  guilty  of  gross  and  defiant 
breaches  of  the  law  of  nations.* 

If  it  be  asserted,  that  the  proper  remedy  of  the  neutral  in 
such  a  case  is  a  declaration  of  war  against  the  offending 
belligerent,  and  the  capture  of  the  vessel  as  prize,  the  an- 
swer is,  that,  although  the  neutral  might  have  a  clear  right 
to  take  that  course,  she  is  not  bound  to  do  so,  and  expose 

*  The  Schooner  "  Exchange"  v.  M'Faddon  and  others,  7  Cranch's  Rep.  116. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  G3 

herself  to  the  evils  of  war,  if  her  interest  demands,  or  she 
prefers,  the  quiet  assertion  of  her  rights,  and  the  vindication 
of  her  neutral  obligations,  in  the  manner  suggested.  Es- 
pecially may  she  with  propriety  and  honor  do  this  where 
she  is  the  stronger  power,  and  pan  thus  vindicate  her  dignity 
and  her  sense  of  duty  without  such  exposure;  —  and  this  is 
the  precise  position  of  England  in  her  relations  to  the  parties 
in  this  war. 

The  question  is  not  unfrequently  raised,  whether,  under 
the  peculiar  circumstances,  these  rebel  ships  can  be  properly 
considered  as  regularly  commissioned,  and  so  entitled  to  be 
recognized  as  public  ships  or  as  privateers,  or  whether  they 
are  to  be  deemed  merely  private  sea-rovers,  with  no  claim  to 
recognition  as  regularly  commissioned  ships  of  war ;  —  in 
which  case,  they  would  fall  within  the  British  naval  regula- 
tions, established  by  the  King  in  Council,  and  published  in 
1826,  which  provide,  that,  "  if  any  ship  or  vessel  shall  be 
taken,  acting  as  a  ship  of  war  or  privateer,  without  having 
a  commission  duly  authorizir^g  her  to  do  so,  her  crew  shall 
be  considered  as  pirates,  and  treated  accordingly." 

That  insurgents,  shut  up  within  the  territories  they  have 
usurped  ;  —  who  have  no  means  within  themselves  of  con- 
structing and  equipping  a  single  ship  of  war ;  —  every  one  of 
whose  ports  is  strictly  blockaded  ;  —  whose  only  means 
of  having  such  a  ship  upon  the  high  seas  is  by  procuring  her 
to  be  built,  equipped,  and  manned  by  the  subjects  of  a  neu- 
tral power;  —  and  whose  only  opportunity  of  investing  her 
with  the  appearance  of  lawful  authority  is  by  a  commission 
sent  to  her  abroad  through  some  agent  skulking  out  of  one 
of  her  remote  harbors  or  creeks  in  the  dead  of  night,  or 
under  the  cover  of  a  storm,  —  that  such  insurgents  should 
thus  be  able  to  have  a  fleet  of  war  vessels,  not  one  of  which 
has  ever  been  within  their  territorial  jurisdiction,  and  should 
have  them  recognized  as  national  ships  by  the  neutral  gov- 
ernment whose  subjects  created,  armed,  and  manned  them ; 


64  NEUTRAL   EELATIONS   OP 

whose  recognition  has  saved  them,  if  any  thing  has,  from 
being  accounted  freebooters  and  pirates ;  and  whose  commer- 
cial interests  their  raids  of  devastation  upon  the  commerce  of 
a  friendly  nation  tend  very  greatly  to  promote,  —  all  this  con- 
stitutes certainly  an  anomaly  in  the  history  of  the  law  of  nations, 
of  purely  English  invention  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  and  of  which  England  is  entitled  to  the  sole  credit. 
Whether,  under  the  law  of  nations,  a  valid  title  can  be  thus 
acquired,  or  the  character  of  a  national  or  regularly  commis- 
sioned private-armed  ship  can  be  thus  impressed  upon  a  ship 
so  circumstanced,  are  questions,  which,  it  is  believed,  remain 
to  be  judicially  determined.  But,  whatever  may  be  the  decis- 
ion, it  must  be  allowed,  that,  diplomatically  considered,  such  a 
state  of  facts  has,  upon  first  impression,  the  aspect  of  a  very 
sinister  neutrality;  and  it  may  not  be  too  wide  a  departure  from 
charity  to  suggest  the  apprehension,  that —  if  the  tables  were 
turned,  and  England  were  at  war  with  the  self-styled  Confed- 
erate States,  and  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  were  thus 
furnishing  privateers  and  ships  of  war  to  prey  upon  her  com- 
merce —  the  masters  and  crews,  if  captured,  and  standing 
before  an  English  court,  might  find  themselves  uncomfortably 
near  to  a  personal  application  of  the  above-mentioned  British 
naval  regulations. 

But  there  is  another  and  broader  view,  in  which  this  matter 
is  to  be  considered,  and  which,  if  not  misapprehended,  pre- 
sents the  honor  and  good  faith  of  England  towards  the  United 
States  in  a  very  questionable  shape. 

If  the  positions  above  taken  be  correct,  —  if  these  vessels 
would  be  liable  to  seizure  and  confiscation  for  violation  of  the 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act  of  England,  unless  protected  by  their 
commissions  as  public  ships  or  privateers  ;  and  if  they  are 
protected  by  such  commissions,  —  then  it  follows,  that  their 
immunity  from  seizure  and  confiscation  is  derived  wholly 
from,  and  is  dependent  upon,  her  recognition  of  the  insur- 
gents as  belligerents. 


I 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED    STATES.  (j5 

Now,  that  recognition  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a  treaty  or 
compact,  express  or  implied,  which  neither  party  coukl  re- 
voke without  the  consent  of  the  other,  and  the  continuance  of 
which  was  stipulated  for  by  particular  terms,  the  violation  of 
which  terms  alone  could  justify  a  departure  from  it.  On  the 
contrary,  it  was  a  mere  act  of  grace  and  favor,  which  England 
was  under  no  obligation  to  grant,  and  has  the  right  to  revoke 
at  any  time  for  good  cause ;  and  it  was,  in  its  nature,  conditional 
upon  the  observance  by  the  rebels  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and 
of  good  faith  towards  herself.  And,  since  the  rebels  had  at- 
tempted to  withdraw  from  their  allegiance  to  the  United 
States  as  integral  portions  of  that  nation,  without  announcing 
any  intention  to  change  the  obligations  imposed  upon  them 
by  the  law  of  nations  under  which  they  had  previously  lived, 
this  recognition  must  have  been  upon  the  implied  condition 
of  their  continued  observance  of  those  obligations. 

It  cannot,  it  is  supposed,  be  doubted,  that  a  mere  recog- 
nition of  insurgents  as  belligerents  by  a  neutral  power  is 
revocable  at  any  time  before  the  acknowledgment  of  them 
as  an  independent  nation,  upon  conviction  that  their  rebellion 
must  be  a  fruitless  struggle,  and  that  the  interests  of  the 
neutral  and  of  other  nations  require  their  return  to  their 
allegiance ;  and,  if  this  be  so,  it  seems  equally  clear,  that  such 
a  recognition  must  be  revocable  upon  proof  that  the  rebels 
are  violating  the  law  of  nations,  or  the  laws  and  neutral  rights 
of  the  power  by  whom  they  were  so  recognized,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  endanger  her  peace,  or  impair  her  credit  and 
respectability,  as  not  faithfully  observant  of  her  neutral 
obligations.  That  the  rebels  have  thus  grossly  violated  the 
laws  and  neutral  rights  of  England,  and  exposed  her  to  just 
complaints  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  (and  it  may  be  to 
just  claims  for  indemnity),  as  well  as  to  discredit  in  the  eyes 
of  other  nations,  in  the  obtaining  of  these  vessels  and  their 
crews  as  above  shown,  is  evident  from  facts  not  suscep- 
tible of  denial,  and  is  conceded  by  her  Government  in  the 

9 


QQ  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

orders  given  to  arrest  them.  Upon  this  ground,  then,  the 
revocation  of  the  recognition  would  not  only  be  plainly 
justifiable,  and  give  no  reasonable  cause  of  complaint  to  the 
insurgents,  but  seems  to  be  demanded  by  a  proper  sense  of 
self-respect,  in  the  vindication  of  her  own  laws  and  of  her 
national  majesty,  and  the  maintenance  of  an  honorable  neutral 
position  toward  the  United  States.  ' 

There  is,  however,  as  is  believed,  another  and  much  more 
grave  reason  for  the  revocation  of  this  recognition  by  Eng- 
land, which  is  demanded  alike  by  regard  for  her  honor,  her 
professions  of  loyalty  to  the  law  of  nations,  her  posture  as  at 
the  head  of  the  naval  powers  of  the  world,  and  the  false  posi- 
tion in  which  she  is  placed  in  her  relations  to  the  United 
States  by  the  crimes  of  the  insurgents. 

As  above  stated,  that  recognition  must  have  been  upon  the 
implied  condition,  that  the  rebels,  as  an  acknowledged  belli- 
gerent, would  conform  to  the  law  of  nations  as  generally 
understood,  and  as  avowed  and  acted  upon  by  England  and 
by  the  United  States.  By  one  of  those  laws,  now  almost  uni- 
versally insisted  upon  by  all  nations,  and  entirely  settled  by 
statute  and  judicial  decision  in  England  and  in  the  United 
States,  neutral  goods  on  board  an  enemy's  vessel  are  exempt 
from  confiscation,  and,  although  the  vessel  may  be  con- 
demned, the  cargo  is  to  be  restored  to  the  neutral  owner ; 
and  conversely,  although  an  enemy's  goods  on  board  of 
a  neutral  vessel  may  be  condemned  as  good  prize,  the  vessel 
is  not  liable  to  confiscation,  but  must  be  restored.* 

A  cargo,  therefore,  belonging  to  English  subjects  on  board 
of  an  American  ship  captured  by  the  rebels,  is  not  subject 
to  confiscation  as  prize  of  war ;  but  the  ownership  remains 
unchanged,  and  entitled  to  protection  in  the  same  manner  as 
if  it  were  in  a  neutral  or  English  ship,  excepting  only  the 


*  1  Kent's  Com.  pp.  128-131;  Wheaton's  Elements  of  International  Law,  part  4, 
ch.  3,  ^  21,  22. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE    UNITED   STATES.  07 

losses  and  inconveniences  necessarily  to  be  incurred  in  taking 
the  vessel  into  port  for  adjudication ;  and  any  voluntary 
appropriation  or  destruction  of  such  property  (with  the 
knowledge  that  it  is  neutral),  not  made  necessary  by  the 
capture  of  the  vessel,  or  by  the  means  proper  for  subjecting 
her  to  adjudication,  must  therefore,  upon  principle,  be  ac- 
counted piracy,  and  punishable  as  such,  in  the  same  manner 
as  if  committed  on  board  of  a  neutral  or  British  ship. 

Another  of  the  laws  of  nations,  believed  to  be  now  gener- 
ally recognized  and  acted  upon,  and  certainly  established  as 
between  England  and  the  United  States  (as  appears  by  their 
statutes  and  judicial  decisions),  is,  that  the  ownership  of 
enemy's  property  captured  at  sea  is  not  changed,  and  does 
not  vest  in  the  captor,  by  the  mere  seizure,  but  remains  in 
abeyance  until  sentence  of  condemnation,  as  lawful  prize, 
by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction  ;  which  court,  with  a 
few  occasional  exceptions,  under  treaties  or  arrangements 
with  allies,  can  only  be  lawfully  held  in  the  country  of  the 
captors;  —  it  being  considered  essential  to  common  security 
on  the  highway  of  nations,  that  this  shield  should  be  inter- 
posed to  protect  travellers  upon  it  from  the  unlicensed  free- 
booting,  and  miscellaneous  open  and  secret  plunder,  which 
would  otherwise  ensue  under  pretences  of  hostile  capture, 
and  of  which  the  rebels  have  already  furnished  notorious 
examples. 

This  law  is  thus  laid  down  by  Chancellor  Kent,  for  whom 
English  lawyers  and  jurists  are  accustomed  to  profess  high 
respect :  "  But,  by  the  modern  usage  of  nations,  neither  the 
twenty-four  hours'  possession,  nor  the  bringing  of  the  prize 
infra  presidia,  is  sufficient  to  change  the  property  in  the  case 
of  a  maritime  capture."  "  Until  the  capture  becomes  invested 
with  the  character  of  prize  by  a  sentence  of  condemnation, 
the  right  of  property  is  in  abeyance,  or  in  a  state  of  legal 
sequestration.  It  cannot  be  alienated  or  disposed  of ;  but  the 
possession  of  it  by  the  government  of  the  captor  is  a  trust  for 


G8  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

the  benefit  of  those  who  may  be  ultimately  entitled.  This 
salutary  rule,  and  one  so  necessary  to  check  irregular  conduct 
and  individual  outrage,  has  been  long  established  in  the  Eng- 
lish Admiralty  ;  and  it  is  noiv  everywhere  recognized  as  the  law 
and  practice  of  nations"  (1  Kent's  Com.  100,  102). 

In  the  case  of  Jecker  v.  Montgomery,  (13  Howard's  Rep.  516,) 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  speaking  of  the  Act 
of  Congress  which  requires  captured  vessels  to  be  brought 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  prize-court  in  the  United  States, 
say :  "  This  act  merely  enforces  the  performance  of  a  duty 
imposed  upon  the  captor  by  the  law  of  nations,  ivhich,  in  all 
civilized  countries,  secures  to  the  captured  a  trial  in  a  court  of 
competent  jurisdiction  before  he  can  finally  he  deprived  of  his 
property y  It  is  not  unworthy  of  remark,  that  England  was 
herself  mainly  instrumental  in  the  introduction  of  this  hu- 
mane modification  of  the  ancient  law,  which  held  that  the 
capture  vested  an  immediate  title. 

The  appropriation  or  destruction,  therefore,  of  private 
property  belonging  even  to  an  enemy,  captured  at  sea,  with- 
out previous  adjudication  and  condemnation  as  prize,  is  in 
utter  defiance  and  gross  violation  of  one  of  the  most  salutary 
and  important  of  the  laws  of  nations,  established  for  their 
mutual  security  on  their  great  highway ;  and  is  a  wrong, 
which  every  civilized  nation  is  bound,  not  only  to  resent,  hut, 
if  possible,  to  prevent. 

Now,  it  is  notorious  to  the  whole  world,  that  the  rebels  are 
carrying  on  this  parricidal  war  in  utter  and  avowed  defiance 
of  this  law ;  —  that,  having  no  ports  into  which  they  can  take 
vessels  captured  by  them  for  adjudication,  they,  after  plunder- 
ing from  their  cargoes  all  that  can  be  taken  on  board  of 
their  own  ships,  immediately  burn  or  sink  the  captured  vessels 
with  the  remainder ;  —  that  this  is  done  by  the  orders  and 
under  an  arrangement  of  the  Rebel  Government,  by  which 
it  has  agreed  to  pay  to  the  captors  one-half  part  of  the  value 
of  all  vessels  and  cargoes,  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  G9 

States,  thus  destroyed ;  —  and  that  such  destruction  has,  in 
repeated  instances,  involved  that  of  neutral  property. 

It  does,  indeed,  seem  marvellous,  that  this  gross  and  public 
defiance  of  one  of  the  most  sacred  laws  of  war  has  been  suf- 
fered to  pass  unchallenged,  and  without  protestation,  or 
attempt  at  suppression,  by  the  self-styled  Mistress  of  the  Sea, 
whose  assumption  of  that  position  might  reasonably  seem  to 
demand  of  her  some  watch  and  ward  over  the  observance  of 
its  laws,  and  especially  of  one,  of  which  she  was  the  principal 
author.  And  this,  while  she  knows,  that  from  her  own  ports 
and  by  her  own  citizens  were  furnished  all  the  moans  and 
opportunities  for  these  outrages,  and  that  they  arc  perpe- 
trated principally  by  her  own  subjects,  and  often  under  her 
own  flag  ;  perpetrated,  too,  not  in  behalf  of  honest  men 
struggling  to  free  themselves  from  tyranny  or  oppression, 
but  by  rebels  seeking  the  subversion  of  the  freest  govern- 
ment the  sun  ever  shone  upon  (of  which  they  had  themselves 
almost  entire  political  control),  in  order  to  substitute  a  des- 
potism founded  on  chattel-slavery.  Above  all,  it  is  marvel- 
lous, that,  when  a  word  from  her  of  revocation,  or  threatened 
revocation,  of  her  recognition  of  them  as  a  lawful  belligerent, 
would  instantly  suppress  these  atrocities,  or  render  their  future 
perpetration  impossible,  —  instead  of  uttering  that  word,  she 
receives  the  perpetrators  with  open  arms  into  her  ports,  with 
national  salutes  and  ofiicial  feastings,  and  with  all  the  mani- 
festations of  sympathy  with  their  cause,  and  their  brigandism, 
which  could  be  bestowed  upon  the  Bayards  and  Sidneys  in  a 
noble  warfare  for  the  dearest  of  human  rights. 

That  the  rebel  leaders  should  have  the  audacity  to  proclaim, 
and  act  upon,  such  a  system  of  warfare  (tlieir  whole  career  in 
the  Rebellion  having  been  one  of  reckless  violation  of  all  laws, 
human  and  divine),  is  not  to  be  wondered  at ;  but  that  other 
nations  should  acquiesce  in  it,  can  only  be  accounted  for  by 
sympathy  with  them,  in  seeming  forgetfulness  that  ere  long 
the  poisoned  chalice  may  be  presented  to  their  own  lips.     In 


70  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS   OP 

future  wars  of  England  or  France,  whose  sympathies  with 
the  insurgents  render  them  conspicuous  as  apparently  justify- 
ing their  conduct,  what  right  will  they  have  to  deny,  that 
merchant  vessels  and  cargoes,  captured  at  sea  by  the  enemy, 
may  be  lawfully  burned  or  destroyed  at  sea,  without  previous 
condemnation  as  lawful  prizes,  —  after  their  acquiescence  in 
this  mode  of  warfare  (if  not  implied  approval  of  it)  by  the 
rebels  ? 

But  a  still  graver  question  concerning  England's  position 
here  presents  itself  Although  this  destruction  of  American 
ships  and  cargoes  may  not  be  accounted  such  a  violation 
of  the  law  of  nations  as  to  subject  the  perpetrators  to  punish- 
ment as  guilty  of  piracy,  it  seems,  nevertheless,  quite  clear, 
that  the  like  needless  destruction  of  British  vessels  or  car- 
goes, under  pretence  of  hostility  to  the  United  States,  must 
be  so  accounted. 

That  such  destruction  has  been  perpetrated  is  univer- 
sally known.  In  several  instances,  valuable  cargoes,  or 
parts  of  cargoes,  belonging  to  English  subjects,  have  been 
burned,  with  the  vessels  containing  them,  because  of  the  in- 
ability of  the  captors  to  remove  them  into  their  own  ships, 
and  their  determination  to  destroy  all  American  shipping 
which  should  fall  in  their  way.  A  notable  instance  is  within 
the  immediate  knowledge  of  the  people  of  this  city ;  being 
the  case  of  the  ship  ''  Nora,"  belonging  to  Messrs.  George  B. 
Upton  and  Son,  eminent  merchants  of  Boston,  which  was 
burned  at  sea  by  the  rebel  commander  and  crew  of  the 
''  Alabama,"  with  a  valuable  cargo  belonging  exclusively  to 
British  subjects,  and  regularly  documented  as  such,  and  about 
the  ownership  of  which  there  could  be  no  reasonable  pretence 
of  doubt.  Now,  to  regard  this  transaction  in  its  true  light, 
we  have  but  to  ask.  What  would  have  been  the  course  of  the 
British  Government,  if  the  captured  ship  had  belonged  to  a 
subject  of  the  Rebel  Government,  and  Capt.  Wilkes,  or  the 
commander  of  any  United-States  cruiser  capturing  her,  had 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  •       71 

thus  burned  both  ship  and  cargo  on  the  high  seas,  for  the  sake 
of  destroying  a  rebel  ship?  Let  the  conduct  of  that  govern- 
ment in  the  case  of  the  "  Trent  "  give  answer.  No  one  can 
doubt,  that  instantly,  upon  reception  of  the  news,  every  availa- 
ble ship-of-war  would  have  been  despatched  in  search  of  the 
"  pirate  "  (as  such  he  would  have  been  denounced);  and  fleets 
and  armies  would  have  been  instantly  sent  to  Canada  and  the 
American  coast,  ready  to  enter  upon  instant  hostilities,  unless 
ample  reparation  should  be  at  once  made  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  with  a  humiliating  apology  that  should 
render  further  similar  outrage  impossible. 

But,  strange  to  say,  we  hear  nothing  of  the  sort  in  these 
instances  of  equal  wrong  to  the  subjects  of  England,  and 
equal  injury  and  insult  to  her  national  majesty.  The  English 
gazettes,  so  loud  in  denunciation  of  the  United  States  on  the 
most  trivial  occasions,  are,  so  far  as  is  known  here,  quite 
silent  about  them,  excepting,  perhaps,  in  a  passing  notice  of 
the  events  of  the  day.  No  Ministerial  or  Parliamentary  pa- 
triotism or  zeal  seems  to  have  been  aroused,  as  was  the  case 
in  an  imagined,  but,  as  it  proved,  wholly  unintended,  wrong 
by  the  United  States ;  and  no  reclamation  has  been  made,  or 
apology  demanded,  or  security  required  against  future  perpe- 
tration of  similar  outrages,  so  far  as  the  American  public  is 
informed. 

How  is  all  this  to  be  accounted  for  ?  What  explanation 
can  be  given  ?  Will  it  be  suggested,  that  the  Rebel  Govern- 
ment has  compensated  the  owners  of  these  cargoes,  and  so 
quieted  their  complaints,  and  rendered  interference  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  needless,  so  far  as  money  is  con- 
cerned ?  Supposing  that  to  be  so  (though  of  this  we  have 
no  e'vidence),  is  this  all  of  England's  duty  in  such  a  matter? 
Is  the  recovery  of  money  all  that  she  owes  to  her  own  dignity 
and  self-respect,  and  all  that  she  owes  to  the  world?  Is  she 
to  condone  piracy  committed  upon  her  citizens  in  gross  viola- 
tion of  a  sacred  law  of  nations,  which,   if  observed,  would 


72  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS    OF 

have  prevented  it,  and  in  gross  disregard  of  her  dignity  and 
defiance  of  her  majesty  as  a  nation  ;  —  or  is  she  to  suffer  it  to 
be  condoned,  that  the  pirates  may  go  unscathed,  and  unshorn 
of  their  power  to  depredate  upon  the  commerce  of  a  friendly 
nation  ?  And  will  she  still  welcome  them  to  her  ports  with 
open  arms  and  national  honors,  and  proffer  to  them  all  the 
facilities  for  their  warfare  against  a  friend,  which  she  could 
extend  to  the  most  honored  and  favored  of  allies,  engaged 
in  the  best  cause  ?  Alas  for  the  pride  and  glory  of  Old  Eng- 
land, the  land  of  our  fathers,  if  this  be  so  !  and  alas  for  the 
sanctity  and  purity  of  national  law,  if  this  be  the  manner  of 
its  observance  and  enforcement  by  the  Mistress  of  the 
Seas!* 

Having  thus  considered  the  power  and  opportunities  which 
England  has  of  putting  an  end  to  the  rebel  depredations  upon 
American  commerce  by  the  use  of  means  of  which  the  rebels 
could  have  no  reasonable  ground  of  complaint,  because  founded 
on  their  own  crimes  against  her  municipal  laws  and  the  law 
of  nations,  we  propose,  in  the  next  Number,  to  consider  what 
may  be  her  obligations  so  to  use  them. 


*  If  the  owners  of  the  British  cargoes  thus  destroyed  have  been  compensated,  as  is 
supposed,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  Confederate  loan,  it  may  excite  a  smile  to 
reflect  with  what  skill  the  traitor  financiers  succeed  in  filching  money  out  of  the  pock- 
ets of  one  class  of  her  Majesty's  sj'mpathizing  subjects,  by  worthless  paper,  to  repay 
their  plunderings  of  the  pi'operty  of  another  class. 


9  September,  1863. 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATER.  73 


IX. 


ENGLAND'S    OBLIGATIONS   TO  SUPPRESS  THE  DEPREDATIONS 
OF    THE   REBEL    PRIVATEERS,    AND    SHIPS    OF    WAR. 

It  having  been  thus  shown  (as  is  believed),  that  England 
has  the  right  and  the  power  to  suppress  the  depredations  of 
the  rebel  privateers,  and  ships  of  war,  upon  the  commerce 
of*  the  United  States,  by  seizure  and  confiscation  of  them,  as 
subject  to  forfeiture  or  condemnation  for  violations  of  her 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  and  of  her  neutrality,  by  the  manner 
in  which  they  have  been  obtained,  armed,  and  manned,  and 
of  her  Shipping  Act,  by  the  abuse  of  her  flag,  and  for  their 
piracies  upon  her  own  subjects,  and  other  violations  of  the 
law  of  nations ;  —  it  having  also  been  shown,  that  she  may 
justly  revoke  her  recognition  of  the  insurgents  as  belligerents, 
because  of  such  infractions  of  those  Acts,  and  of  her  neu- 
trality in  reference  to  the  United  States,  and  the  consequent 
endangerment  of  her  peaceful  relations  with  that  power ; 
because  of  their  constant,  defiant  violation  of  one  of  the  most 
important  of  the  laws  of  nations,  of  which  England  herself 
was  the  chief  author ;  and  because  of  their  repeated  piracies 
upon  her  own  subjects,  against  Avhich  that  law  Avas  intended 
as  a  protection,  and  which,  if  observed,  it  would  effectually 
prevent ;  —  and  it  having  been  shown,  moreover,  that  by  this 
revocation  the  rebels  would  be  deprived  of  their  chief,  if  not 
of  all  their  essential,  resources  for  naval  Avarfaro,  and  of  im- 
munity of  the  crews  of  their  vessels  from  punishment  under 

10 


74  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS    OP 

the  statutes  of  the  United  States  and  the  law  of  nations,  —  it 
remains  now  to  inquire,  What  are  her  obhgations  to  exercise 
these  powers? 

It  is  indeed  very  strenuously  maintained  by  recent  writers 
in  England,  in  their  zeal  to  vindicate  her  conduct  and  reputa- 
tion in  this  war,  that  any  violations  of  neutrality  are  offences 
only  against  the  neutral,  of  which  the  belligerent  against 
whom  they  are  committed  has  no  right  of  complaint ;  and 
that  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  is  a  purely  municipal  regu- 
lation, with  the  infringement  of  which  such  belligerent  has 
no  concern,  and  the  enforcement  of  which  he  has  no  right  to 
require.  And  such,  at  one  period,  seemed  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  the  immediate  Goverinnent  of  England,  as  avowed  in  Par- 
liament and  by  the  English  press. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true,  that  the  violation  of  the  neutrality 
of  a  nation  is  an  offence  against  her  alone,  and  that  the  in- 
jured belligerent  has  no  cause  of  complaint  merely  because 
such  a  violation  has  taken  place  :  for  he  clearly  has  none 
against  his  enemy,  who,  as  to  him,  may  rightfully  attack  him 
wherever  he  may  be  reached  ;  nor  any  against  the  neutral  na- 
tion merely  because  her  rights  have  been  violated,  for  that 
may  be  entirely  without  her  fault  or  her  ability  to  prevent  it. 
And  it  is  equally  true,  that  Foreign  Enlistment  Acts  are  merely 
municipal  regulations,  made  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
nations  having  them  to  prevent  or  to  punish  violations  of  their 
own  neutrality  only  ;  mere  instruments  or  means  of  preserv- 
ing it,  which  foreign  nations  cannot  take  in  hand  for  their 
own  protection,  and  of  violations  of  the  provisions  of  which, 
merely  as  such,  they  have  no  right  to  complain. 

But,  notwithstanding  all  the  learning  and  ability  employed 
in  maintaining  these  theses,  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  mere 
abstractions  in  the  practical  application  of  the  rules  of  duty 
to  the  faithful  observance  of  neutral  oblis-ations. 

A  neutral  nation  has  not  only  rights  which  may  be  violated 
by  belligerents,  and  the  violation  of  which  is  to  her  as  a  mere 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  75 

persoual  wrDng,  but  sliu  is  also  under  obligations  towards 
each  of  the  belHgcrents,  which  it  is  her  duty  to  fulfih 

The  preservation  of  strict  and  iiui^artial  neutrality  is  a 
fundamental  duty  universally  acknowledged  ;  and  no  one, 
it  is  presumed,  will  deny  that  it  forbids  the  neutral  to  permit 
or  suffer  military  or  naval  expeditions  or  armaments  to  be 
fitted  out  from  its  territory  by  its  own  subjects,  or  by  one 
belligerent  to  be  used  against  the  other,  or  any  other  viola- 
tion of  its  neutrality  by  Avhich  either  of  them  may  be  injured, 
and  which  it  can  reasonably  prevent.  Such  permission  or 
sufferance  is  virtual  connivance  with  the  enemy,  and  converts 
the  professing  neutral  into  his  ally,  whom  the  offended  bellige- 
rent may  justly  treat  as  such. 

Every  duty  involves  the  obligation  to  use  all  reasonable 
means,  within  the  power  of  the  obliged,  to  perform  it ;  and  in 
so  far,  therefore,  as  the  possession  of  one  of  these  Foreign 
Enlistment  Acts  gives  to  the  neutral  nation  the  means  of  pre- 
serving a  faithful  neutrality,  just  so  far  she  is  bound  to  use 
them ;  and  a  voluntary  omission  to  do  so  is  a  neglect  of,  or 
departure  from,  that  duty,  and  a  cornesponding  failure  to  ob- 
serve her  neutral  obligations ;  and,  although  the  belligerent, 
injured  by  such  omission,  may  not  have  any  cause  to  complain 
of  the  violation  of  the  Act  as  an  offence  against  himself,  he  may 
reasonably  and  justly  complain  that  the  permission  to  violate  it, 
implied  by  such  failure  to  enforce  it,  was  a  departure  from 
the  observance  of  the  obligations  of  the  neutral,  which  he  had 
a  right  to  require. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  duty  to  preserve  a  faithful  neutrality 
must  be  exactly  commensurate  with  the  ability  to  do  so ; 
that  a  weak  nation  may  be  excusable  for  not  preventing 
or  not  punishing  breaches  of  it,  when  the  failure  to  do  so 
by  a  stronger  one,  with  greater  facilities,  would  be  highly 
censurable,  and  would  constitute  just  cause  of  complaint,  and 
even  of  war,  on  the  part  of  the  belligerent  injured.  It  is 
equally  clear,  that  these  means  of  observing  a  faithful  neu- 


76  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS    OP 

trality  must  be  correspondent  also  with  the  civilization,  the 
military  and  naval  power,  and  the  resources  in  jurisprudence, 
of  the  neutral  nation,  and  that  these  are  to  be  accounted  among 
her  facilities  for  the  fulfilment  of  this  duty  ;  and,  further,  that 
she  would  be  criminally  neglectful  of  such  duty  in  not  provid- 
ing the  reasonable  means  which  they  place  within  her  reach  ; 
and,  finally,  that  some  such  municipal  regulations  are  essential, 
if  not  the  only,  means  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  neu- 
tral nation  from  secret  or  open  violation,  and  for  enabling  her 
faithfully  to  fulfil  her  obligations  to  other  nations  at  war. 
What  defence  would  it  be  to  England,  France,  or  the  United 
States,  if  charged  with  a  breach  of  neutral  obligations,  or  the 
sufferance  of  violations  of  the  nation's  neutrality  by  a  bellige- 
rent, to  plead  that  she  had  no  code  of  laws  adequate  to  her 
own  protection,  or  to  enable  her  to  prevent  such  violations 
by  other  nations   upon  her  own  territories? 

It  seems  clear,  therefore,  upon  principle,  that  the  United 
States  have*  a  just  right  to  require  that  England  should  avail 
herself  of  her  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  to  prevent  acts  of 
hostihty  prohibited  by  the  law  of  nations  from  being  com- 
mitted within  her  dominions  against  the  United  States  ;  and 
that  a  failure  so  to  apply  it  should  constitute  reasonable 
cause  of  complaint,  and  might,  if  carried  to  a  certain  extent, 
and  under  some  circumstances,  justify  claims  for  indemnity, 
or  a  declaration  of  war. 

This  conclusion  is  equally  clear  upon  recurrence  to  the 
history  of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Acts  of  England  and 
the  United  States,  and  of  the  principles  upon  which  they 
were  professedly  founded.  As  before  shown,  the  Act  of  the 
United  States  was  passed  at  a  time  when  they  stood  in  a 
position  requiring  the  most  faithful  observance  of  neutral 
obligations  towards  France  and  England,  then  at  war  ;  and  this 
was  done  upon  the  application  of  the  English  Government,  as  a 
means  of  enabling  that  of  the  United  States  effectually  to  fulfil 
them.     It  had  its  origin,  therefore,  confessedly  and  eminently, 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  77 

in  an  acknoioledgcd  ohlirjation  on  the  part  of  a  neutral  to  other 
nations,  as  a  means  of  preservuuj  an  impartial  neutrality, 
and  was  applied  in  constant  and  strict  conformity  with  sueli 
obligation.  It  was  afterwards  amended,  and  adopted  by 
England  almost  without  change,  thus  implying  a  coincidence 
of  opinion  and  intention  as  to  its  meaning  and  purposes ;  and 
England,  at  a  period  long  subsequent  to  her  adoption  of  it, 
claimed  of  the  United  States  its  application  for  her  protec- 
tion, and  the  claim  was  allowed.  If  ever,  therefore,  a  fair 
claim  could  exist  in  behalf  of  one  government  upon  another 
for  the  interposition  of  such  a  means  of  defence  against 
violations  of  its  neutrality,  the  United  States  has  that  claim 
on  England ;  and  more  emphatically  may  it  be  demanded 
when  they  seek  it,  not  against  a  foreign  enemy  in  an  ordinary 
warfare,  but  against  traitors  and  rebels,  seeking  the  over- 
throw of  their  Government  for  the  establishment  and  per- 
petuation of  the  most  accursed  institution  that  ever  afflicted 
or  degraded  a  civilized  people. 

Another  and  very  strong  claim  which  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  has  upon  that  of  England  for  the  inter- 
position of  the  law  in  the  present  case,  is  that  these  violations 
of  her  neutrality,  productive  of  such  extensive  and  serious 
injuries,  are  not  perpetrated  so  much  by  the  enemy  within 
her  borders  as  by  her  own  people.  For,  hoAvever  it  might  be 
urged  that  offences  committed  against  the  riglits  of  a  neutral 
by  either  of  the  belHgerents  are  wrongs  against  the  neutral 
only,  of  the  sufferance  of  which  the  other  belligerent  has  no 
lawful  cause  of  complaint,  no  such  defence  can  be  taken 
where  the  offences  are  substantially  perpetrated  by  the  sub- 
jects of  the  neutral  power;  and  so,  if  permitted  or  connived 
at  when  means  of  prevention  exist,  become  her  own,  and  for 
them  she  is  justly  accountable  ;  and  no  case,  it  is  thought,  can 
be  imagined,  in  Avhich  a  stronger  claim,  founded  on  this 
ground,  could  be  made,  than  one  by  the  United  States  against 
England. 


78  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OF 

Upon  these  principles  and  historic  facts,  it  seems  clear 
that  England  is  under  solemn  national  obligations  to  enforce 
her  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  for  the  protection  of  the  com- 
merce of  the  United  States  from  the  depredations  of  rebel 
privateers,  and  ships  of  war,  that  are  now  in  process  of  con- 
struction within  her  territories,  or  are  roaming  the  seas. 
Nor  is  there  wanting  striking  proof  of  her  own  recognition 
of  these  obligations  in  past  times,  when  her  own  interests 
prompted  it,  or  her  sense  of  duty  was  unimpaired  by  jealousy 
or  ill-will.  A  notable  proof  of  the  holy  horror  and  indigna- 
tion with  which,  in  the  war  of  Independence  between  her 
and  the  United  States  (her  revolting  colonies,  or  rebels,  as 
she  termed  them),  she  contemplated  the  supplies  of  arms  and 
ammunition,  and  the  fitting-out  of  privateers,  and  vessels  of 
war,  in  French  ports,  to  aid  her  rebellious  subjects,  —  cor- 
responding with  singular  exactness  with  the  aid  furnished  in 
England  to  the  insurgents  in  this  war,  —  maybe  seen  by 
perusal  of  the  ''  Memoire  Justificatif,"  setting  forth  the  justi- 
fying causes  for  war  against  France  (in  the  22d  vol.  of  the 
British  "Annual  Register"  for  1799,  p.  404).  Mutatis  mu- 
tandis, it  might  serve  with  equal  propriety  as  grounds  for 
a  declaration  of  war  by  the  United  States  against  England  at 
the  present  moment. 

The  most  impressive  proof,  however,  and  a  truly  honorable 
one,  of  England's  recognition  of  this  duty,  took  place  under 
the  Duke  of  Wellington's  administration,  in  1828  or  1829,  in 
the  celebrated  case  of  the  Portuguese  expedition  to  Terceira. 
In  the  contest  between  Donna  Maria,  as  Queen  of  Portugal 
(so  recognized  by  Great  Britain  and  the  principal  powers  of 
Europe),  and  the  usurper  Don  Miguel,  a  large  number  of  her 
subjects  embarked  in  vessels  from  Plymouth,  ostensibly 
bound  for  Brazil,  but  in  reality  for  the  Island  of  Terceira, 
which  had  remained  faithful  to  her ;  and,  it  being  suspected 
by  the  English  Government  that  they  were  bent  upon  a  mili- 
tary expedition  to  that  island,  it  despatched  a  naval  force  to 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    INITKD    STATES.  70 

intercept  them,  and  prevent  their  landing;  and  this  was  (U)ne 
by  force  of  arms,  the  shedding  of  blood,  and  the  taking  of 
life.  The  English  fleet  not  only  fired  upon  the  transports, 
killing  at  least  one  man,  but  seized  them,  and  carried  them  to 
a  great  distance  at  sea,  and  then  returned  to  stand  guard 
over  the  island,  and  prevent  the  landing  of  the  men.  The 
ground  taken  by  the  administration  was,  ''  that,  the  ex|)edi- 
tion  having  fraudentlij  evaded  the  English  jurisdiction,  and 
started  from  England  in  violation  of  the  Enlistment  Act,  the 
English  Government  was  entitled  to  pursue  and  seize  the  s/n^js 
beyond  her  Jurisdiction."  It  is  true,  great  opposition  was 
made  in  Parliament  to  the  legality  and  propriety  of  the  pro- 
cedure ;  but  the  Government  was  honorably  sustained,  and 
it  stands  a  proud  record  of  England's  sense  of  her  duty  as  a 
neutral.  But  the  Government  of  England  was  then  in  the 
hands  of  a  great  man,  who  knew  how  to  assert  and  defend 
her  honor,  in  diplomacy  and  in  the  performance  of  her  neu- 
tral duties,  as  well  as  on  the  field  of  battle. 

Upon  the  principles  of  that  decree,  it  is  England's  duty 
now  to  send  out  and  seize  these  destroyers,  burning  and 
plundering  in  violation  not  only  of  her  own  laws,  but  of  the 
law  of  nations  ;  instead  of  which,  she  receives  them  with 
open  arms  of  friendly  hospitality  into  her  ports.  How 
strikingly  dependent  upon  the  character  of  an  individual 
Minister  is  the  honor,  and  sometimes  even  the  destiny,  of  a 
nation ! 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  recognizes  this 
doctrine  as  well  settled  in  the  courts  of  this  country.  In 
the  case  of  the  "  Marianna  Flora  "  (1  Wheaton's  Rep.  p.  I),  the 
Court  says,  "  that  American  ships  offending  against  our  laws, 
and  foreign  ships,  in  like  manner,  offending  ivithin  our  jmns- 
diction,  may  afterwards  be  pursued  and  seized  iqwn  the  ocean, 
and  rightfully  brought  into  our  courts  for  adjudicaiioii,^^  —  a 
doctrine  obviously  essential  to  the  vindication  of  national 
sovereignty  and  the  protection  of  those  against  whom  such 


80  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

offences  were  intended,  and  one  which  England  will  not  be 
slow  to  respect  when  a  returning  sense  of  duty,  or  of  national 
honor,  shall  prevail  in  her  national  councils. 

It  is  gratifying  to  perceive,  that  the  principle  that  a  bel- 
ligerent, injured  by  violations  of  neutral  territory  or  rights, 
may  rightfully  expect  that  the  neutral  government  will  en- 
force its  laws  for  their  prevention  (of  late  so  vehemently 
denied  in  England),  has  been  already,  in  some  measure, 
admitted  by  the  British  Ministry,  as  appears  by  the  speech 
in  Parliament  by  Lord  Palmerston,  before  mentioned.  And 
it  may  be  hoped,  that,  when  the  subject  of  the  gross  viola- 
tions of  her  neutrality,  which  have  been  committed  within 
her  jurisdiction  in  this  war,  come  to  be  more  generally 
known  and  understood,  a  popular  sense  of  justice  and 
self-  respect  will  demand  that  the  principle  •  shall  be  a}> 
plied. 

It  may  be,  however,  that  the  right  to  seize  and  confiscate 
the  rebel  ships,  under  the  Enlistment  Act,  may  be  barred  as  to 
those  which  have  been  twelve  months  at  sea,  under  the  limi- 
tation in  the  tenth  section,  if  that  shall  be  adjudged  to  apply 
to  an  information  against  the  vessel  as  well  as  to  an  action  or 
suit  for  penalties  against  persons  guilty  of  violating  its  pro- 
visions. 

But  a  revocation  by  England  of  her  recognition  of  the 
rebels  as  a  belligerent  power  —  demanded,  as  it  seems  to  be, 
in  vindication  of  her  own  laws  and  of  the  law  of  nations, 
which  they  have  so  flagrantly  and  defiantly  outraged,  and  in 
vindication  of  her  national  sovereignty  against  the  piracies 
committed  upon  her  own  subjects  (which  must  continue  to 
be  committed  so  long  as  their  career  at  sea  remains  un- 
checked) —  would  be  the  most  effectual  means  of  suppressing 
these  depredations.  And  surely  a  people  have  little  right  to 
require  to  be  acknowledged  as  belligerents  at  sea,  who  have 
no  means  of  rendering  the  taking  of  property  by  them  there 
lawful,  under  the  subsequent  proceedings  made  essential  to 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  81 

that  end  by  the  hiws  of  nations,  but  can  only  carry  on 
marine  warfare  in  open  and  avowed  and  necessary  violation 
of  them. 

This  recognition  was  in  itself  a  signal  departure  from  a  just 
neutrality,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the  strict  impartiality 
which  that  demands.  For  it  gave  to  the  rebels  what  they 
had  not  before,  —  a  national  sto^ws,  —  to  which  they  had  not 
become  entitled  by  lapse  of  time,  or  by  any  public  proof  of 
reasonable  ability  to  maintain  themselves  ;  and  more  especially 
it  gave  to  British  subjects  the  privilege  of  enlisting  in  their 
service  and  supplying  their  needs,  with  immunity  from  the 
liability  of  being  accounted  pirates  by  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  (as  they  otherwise  might  have  been  under  her 
statutes  and  with  her  rights  against  rebels  in  arms),  the  fear 
of  which  would  have  probably  prevented  the  disposition  of 
Englishmen  to  enlist  in  rebel  privateers ;  while,  at  the  same 
time,  it  substantially  took  from  the  United  States  the  power 
to  enforce  those  statutes  even  against  American  citizens. 

And  followed,  as  this  recognition  immediately  was,  by 
its  natural  fruits,  in  the  extensive  embarkation  of  British 
capital  and  British  seamen  in  privateering  enterprises  against 
the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  —  and  considering  the 
manner  in  which  these  have  been  tolerated,  if  not  encouraged, 
by  both  the  ministry  and  the  people,  —  it  requires  no  small 
stretch  of  charity  to  believe  that  it  was  not  dictated  by 
friendly  yearnings,  at  least,  towards  the  rebel  cause.  But, 
whatever  the  motives  that  led  to  it,  a  swift  retribution  fol- 
lowed ;  for  it  proved  to  be  the  means  of  preventing  the  acces- 
sion of  the  United  States  to  the  Convention  of  Paris,  of  1856, 
by  which  privateering  was  proposed  to  be  abolished :  and  so 
England  lost  the  opportunity  of  taking  from  the  United  States 
their  present  most  formidable  weapon  in  naval  war,  and  of 
preventing  the  ruinous  consequences  to  her  commerce,  to 
which,  in  case  of  war  with  the  United  States,  she  would 
always  be  exposed.     In  view  of  the  necessities  to  which  the 

11 


82  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OP 

United  States  may  be  driven  in  the  maintenance  of  their 
national  h'fe,  many,  if  not  most,  of  her  citizens  will  regard  the 
escape  from  this  surrender  of  so  formidable  a  weapon  for  self- 
defence  as  at  least  a  very  fortunate,  if  not  Providential, 
event. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  forgotten  among  the  unhappy  peculiarities 
of  the  position  in  Avhich  England  has  placed  herself  by  her  un- 
friendly, not  to  say  hostile,  disposition  towards  the  United 
States  in  this  struggle,  that  it  is  owing  solely  to  her  interpo- 
sition of  an  obstacle  in  the  way,  that  they  have  not  become  a 
party  to  the  convention.  When  this  proposal  for  the  abolish- 
ment of  privateering  was  first  made,  the  United  States  readily 
acceded  to  it,  upon  condition  that  the  right  to  capture  private 
property  on  the  sea  by  public  ships  of  war  should  also  be 
prohibited  ;  thus  extending  to  property  at  sea  the  same 
exemption  from  plunder,  which  is  generally  allowed,  by  mo- 
dern civilization,  to  property  on  land.  But  England,  having 
a  vastly  greater  number  of  public  ships  of  war  than  any  other 
nation,  and  unwilling  to  surrender  this  advantage  (though 
founded  on  a  species  of  warfare  which  will  soon  be  abolished, 
as  little  better  than  piracy,  when  she  shall  have  one  or  more 
rivals  on  the  ocean),  refused  the  amendment. 

Soon  after  the  Rebellion  broke  out,  however,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  renewed  negotiations  with  Eng- 
land and  France  upon  the  subject,  and  finally  instructed  Mr. 
Adams  to  signify  its  willingness  to  become  a  party  to  the 
convention  ;  whereupon  Earl  Russell  required,  as  a  condition 
of  England's  consent,  the  interpolation  of  a  clause,  to  the 
effect  that  "  her  Majesty  did  not  intend  thereby  to  undertake 
any  engagement  which  should  have  any  bearing,  direct  or 
indirect,  on  the  internal  differences  now  prevailing  in  the 
United  States  "  ;  —  a  reservation  to  which  it  is  obvious  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  could  not  assent  with 
any  degree  of  self-respect,  or  in  consistency  with  its  po- 
sition in  reference  to  the  traitors  waging  war  upon  it. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  83 

The  reason  assigned  appears  to  be,  that,  England  having 
recognized  the  rebels  as  a  belligerent  power,  an  embarass- 
ment  might  arise  from  any  supposed  obligation  on  her  part, 
growing  out  of  the  convention,  in  reference  to  her  treatment 
of  the  rebel  privateersmen,  if  required  by  the  United  States 
to  consider  them  as  within  its  operation. 

It  is  not  quite  clear  how  England,  by  the  mere  recognition 
of  the  insurgents  as  belligerents,  had  imposed  upon  herself 
the  obligation  to  forego  the  making  of  advantageous  treaties 
with  other  nations  upon  the  most  important  subjects  of 
national  intercourse  and  law.  It  would  seem  reasonable  to 
infer,  that  any  rights-  under  such  recognition  must  be  contin- 
gent, so  far  as  they  might  be  affected  by  subsequent  treaties 
or  negotiations  with  other  nations  not  designed  to  impair 
them ;  or,  at  the  least,  that  such  recognition,  being  a  mere 
act  of  grace,  revocable  for  good  cause,  if  not  at  pleasure, 
might  be  so  far  modified  as  to  meet  the  difficulty,  by  requir- 
ing the  rebels  (who  are  notoriously  carrying  on  this  species 
of  warfare  in  atrocious  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  not 
unmingled  with  piracy  upon  her  own  citizens,)  to  acquiesce 
in  an  arrangement  to  which  she  and  the  other  principal 
nations  of  the  earth  had  become  parties,  as  one  demanded  by 
humanity  and  the  civilization  of  the  age,  —  or  else  to  lose  the 
benefit  of  the  recognition  altogether. 

Under  ordinary  circumstances,  candor  might  require  us 
to  suppose,  that  the  preservation  of  good  faith  with  the  insur- 
gents was  the  only  motive  of  the  English  ministry  for  this 
procedure  ;  but,  in  view  of  the  uniformly  hostile  disposition 
evinced  towards  the  United  States  in  this  struggle,  and  the 
very  great,  not  to  say  essential,  importance  to  the  rebels  of 
retaining  this  means  of  warfare,  it  may,  without  any  wide 
departure  from  charitable  construction,  be  considered  doubt- 
ful, whether  the  procedure  may  not  have  been  quite  as  much 
prompted  by  the  conviction,  that  the  dissolution  of  our  Gov- 
ernment, and  consequent  destruction  of  our  naval  power,  was 


84  NEDTEAL    RELATIONS   OF 

80  close  at  hand  as  to  render  its  diminution  in  this  way  a  mat- 
ter of  Httle  importance,  or  by  unwilhngness  to  deprive  the 
rebels  of  so  formidable  an  engine  of  war  as  their  English 
privateers  constituted,  or  by  a  combination  of  both  in- 
fluences. 

But,  whatever  may  have  been  the  motive,  there  must  now 
be  added  to  the  other  lamentable  instances  of  false  position  in 
which  England  now  stands,  that  of  having  prevented  the  con- 
summation of  one  of  the  most  beneficent  arrangements  ever 
proposed  to  the  nations  of  the  earth  for  the  amelioration  of 
the  horrors  of  war,  by  shutting  the  door  to  it  in  the  face  of 
one  of  the  chief  among  them  in  point  of. commercial  and  naval 
power,  —  and  of  doing  this,  or  being  compelled  to  do  it,  in 
order  not  to  impair  the  privileges  of  a  set  of  rebel  despera- 
does, who,  having  no  ports  of  their  own,  but  making  hers 
their  base  of  supply  and  operation,  are  roaming  the  seas  for 
the  destruction  of  the  commerce  of  a  friendly  nation ;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  she  loses  the  opportunity  of  permanently 
securing  herself  from  the  most  dangerous  species  of  warfare 
to  which  she  may  ever  be  exposed. 

14  September,  1863. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED    STATES.  85 


X. 


THE   "  ALEXANDRA."       CONSTRUCTION   OP  THE   FOREIGN 
ENLISTMENT   ACT. 

The  discussion  has  hitlierto  been  confined  to  the  cases  of 
rebel  ships  of  war,  and  privateers,  which  have  been  built, 
armed,  and  equipped  in  English  ports,  or  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  English  flag,  and  are  now  upon  the  seas,  and 
which  fall  under  the  application  of  various  principles  of  the 
law  of  nations,  as  well  as  of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act. 
There  remain  to  be  considered  those  of  vessels  of  war  built 
in  English  ports  on  contract  with  the  rebels,  or  knowingly 
for  their  service,  but  not  finished  nor  armed  and  equipped  for 
the  commission  of  immediate  hostilities ;  which  cases  are  to 
be  examined  in  reference  to  the  applicability  to  them  of  that 
statute. 

These  cases  are  of  peculiar  interest,  as  involving  the  ques- 
tion of  the  power  and  correspondent  obligation  of  the  British 
Government  to  interfere  with  the  fitting-out  of  ships  of  war 
in  season  effectually  to  prevent  their  completion ;  it  being 
obvious,  that  if  no  such  right  of  interposition  exist  until  they 
shall  have  been  fully  armed  and  equipped,  ready  to  sail  at  the 
first  opportunity  for  slipping  out  of  harbor,  the  law  must 
prove  little  better  than  a  dead  letter,  as  such  seeming  com- 
pletion or  departure  would  never  take  place  until  after  their 
escape,  or  until  the  moment  when  escape  would  be  certain. 

The  case  of  the  "  Alexandra,"  now  on  trial,  and  those  of 
the  Turreted  Rams  in  process  of  completion,  are  of  this  de- 
scription. 


86  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

That  of  the  "  Alexandra  "  is  simply  the  case  of  a  ship  of  war, 
launched,  and  quite  or  nearly  prepared  to  receive  her  arma- 
ment, under  contract  with  the  rebels,  or  persons  acting  in  their 
behalf,  and  for  their  service  in  hostilities  against  the  United 
States  (the  contractors  knowing  of  such  intended  use),  and 
seized,  upon  an  information  under  the  seventh  section  of  the 
Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  before  she  was  entirely  equipped,  or 
had  any  arms  on  board. 

No  one,  reading  the  evidence,  could  doubt  that  the  parties 
engaged  in  her  construction  and  completion  intended  her,  or 
were  so  engaged  with  the  knowledge  that  she  was  intended, 
for  the  rebel  service.  The  Lord  Chief  Baron,  in  his  summing- 
up  (if  correctly  reported  in  the  *'  London  Times  "  of  June  25), 
placed  the  case  upon  the  question,  ''  whether^  not  being  armed, 
the  jyreparation  of  the  vessel  in  its  then  condition  was  a  viola- 
tion of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act ; "  "  whether,  under  the 
seventh  section  of  the  act  of  Parliament,  the  vessel,  as  then 
])re2Jared  at  the  time  of  seizure,  was  liable  to  seizure."  He 
stated  the  law  to  be,  that  a  neutral  power  may  lawfully  supply 
either  belligerent  with  arms  and  munitions  of  war ;  and  that, 
in  his  opinion,  it  may  with  equal  right  supply  them  with  ships 
also  ;  that  "  the  object  of  the  statute  was,  that  British  ports 
should  not  be  made  the  ground  of  hostile  movements  between 
the  vessels  of  two  belligerent  powers,  which  might  he  fitted 
out,  furnished,  and  armed  in  those  pot'ts."  And  after  stating, 
that,  ''  if  the  '  Alabama '  sailed  away  from  Liverpool  without 
any  arms  at  all,  as  a  mere  ship  in  ballast,  and  her  armament  was 
put  on  board  at  Terceira,"  then,  in  his  opinion,  "  the  Foreign 
Enlistment  Act  was  not  violated  at  all,"  he  closed  by  saying, 
"  If  you  think  that  the  object  was  to  furnish,  fit  out,  equip,  and 
arm  that  vessel  at  Liverpool,  that  is  a  different  matter ;  but  if 
you  think  the  object  really  was  to  build  a  ship  in  obedience 
to  an  order  in  compliance  with  a  contract,  leaving  those  who 
bought  it  to  make  what  use  they  thought  fit  of  it,  then  it 
appears   to   me   that   the    Foreign    Enlistment  Act   has  not 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED    STATES.  87 

been  broken."  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  his  Lordship  at- 
t^tched  no  importance  to  the  intention  of  the  parties  engaged 
in  building  or  preparing  the  vessel,  although  such  intention 
might  be  to  build  or  equip  and  arm  a  vessel  of  war  for  the 
service  of  the  rebels,  and  on  contract  with  them,  provided  that 
such  intention  did  not  extend  to  the  Jitting-out  and  equip- 
ping of  her  in  a  British  port.  The  Attorney-General  seems 
to  have  endeavored  to  bring  his  Lordship's  mind  to  the  point 
upon  which  he  apparently  rested  his  case ;  namely,  "  that 
if  the  ship  was  hiiilt  with  the  intention  that  it  should  enter  the 
service  of  another  power,  at  war  with  a  power  with  which 
England  was  at  peace,  that  Avould  be  an  offence  against 
the  statute.'"'  But  his  Lordship,  as  reported,  seemed  un- 
willing to  recognize  the  distinction  between  such  a  propo- 
sition and  that  involved  in  a  question  put  to  him  by  the 
Attorney-General,  "  Whether  it  would  be  unlawful  for  a  ship- 
builder to  build  a  ship  capable  of  being  turned  to  warlike 
purposes,  with  the  view  of  offering  it  for  sale  to  the  bellige- 
rent," though  it  is  obviously  a  very  different  one ;  and  he 
must  be  understood  as  having,  impliedly  at  least,  overruled 
the  point  so  taken. 

From  the  seeming  want  of  precision  in  the  statements  of 
the  points  made  by  the  counsel,  and  taken  or  commented 
upon  by  the  Court,  it  must  be  inferred  that  the  case  is  very 
imperfectly  reported.  But,  according  to  this  report,  the 
facts  may  be  assumed  to  be,  that  the  persons  who  were 
engaged  in  the  building  and  preparing  of  this  vessel  acted 
under  a  contract  with  the  rebels  for  the  building  and  equip- 
ping of  a  ship  of  war,  knowing  her  to  be  intended  for  their 
service  in  hostilities  against  the  United  States ;  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  Court  to  be,  that  such  building  and  equipping 
constitute  no  offence  under  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  un- 
less the  ship  be  completed  and  armed  at  the  time  of  seizure,  or 
intended  to  he  completed  and  armed  and  made  ready  for  immedi- 
ate hostilities  ivithin  a  British  port.     It  does  not  appear  clearly, 


88  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS   OF 

whether  the  Court  would  hold  even  such  intention  sufficient, 
unless  the  vessel,  at  the  time  of  seizure,  were  actually  armefl 
and  equipped  for  sea.  But  it  is  of  little  importance  how  this 
may  be,  as  either  construction  of  the  statute  would  render  it 
substantially  nugatory :  it  being  evident,  that,  if  she  must  be 
armed  and  equipped  for  immediate  hostilities  before  she  can 
be  seized,  she  can  always  escape  before  such  entire  comple- 
tion, or  immediately  after  it,  under  cover  of  night,  or  of  a 
picnic  pretence,  or  other  artifice,  which  it  would  be  easy  to 
contrive,  and  at  which  willing  officials,  from  crown-lawyers 
down  to  tide-waiters,  under  a  Government  sympathizing  with 
the  belligerents  to  be  served  by  such  escape,  would  be  ready 
to  wink ;  or  that  such  prospective  intention,  so  minute  and 
reaching  so  far,  would  rarel}^,  if  ever,  be  susceptible  of  proof, 
even  if  existing  in  the  minds  of  any  of  the  persons  engaged 
in  her  construction  or  equipment,  while  all  of  them  might  be, 
and  in  all  probability  would  be,  kept  in  ignorance  of  any  such 
design  in  the  minds  of  their  employers.  Nor  is  this  all ;  for, 
if  this  doctrine  be  maintainable  in  the  latitude  stated  by  the 
Court,  it  would  only  be  needful  that  the  ship,  entirely  fitted 
for  sea  in  all  but  her  armament  and  fighting  crew,  should 
proceed  to  any  point  at  sea  three  miles  and  a  furlong  distant 
from  any  port  on  the  English  coast,  there  to  receive  them 
from  another  vessel  under  the  English  flag,  and  then  to  com- 
mence  her  cruise,  free  from  all  violation  of  the  Act,  or  liability 
under  it.  How  far  this  would  differ  in  substance  from  sailing 
immediately  from  such  port,  thus  fully  armed  and  equipped, 
upon  her  cruise,  every  man  of  common  sense  can  judge.  Well 
might  the  rebels  exclaim,  as  they  did  in  one  of  their  leading- 
papers  in  Richmond,  in  view  of  such  a  judgment  as  this, 
"  The  advantages  to  us  which  an  affirmation  of  this  '  Alexan- 
dra '  case  will  afford  cannot  be  overestimated.  If  they  are 
promptly  availed  of  by  our  naval  authorities,  we  will  be  in  a 
position  not  only  to  give  a  death-hlow  to  the  commerce  of  our 
enemy,  but  to   strike  at  some  of  his  Northern  cities,"  &c. 


I 


ENGLAND    AND   THE    UNITED    STATES.  89 

"  Vessels  of  the  *  Warrior '  class  tvould  promjAbj  raise  the 
blockade  of  our  ports ;  and  would  even  confer,  in  this  respect, 
advantages  which  would  soon  repay  the  cost  of  their  construc- 
tion." The  extreme  results,  promised  in  the  usual  style  of 
rebel  braggadocio,  would  not  be  realized ;  but  it  is  not  ven- 
turing too  much  to  say,  that  under  a  confirmation  of  this 
decision,  carried  to  its  full  extent,  a  powerful  English  navy 
might  soon  be  at  sea,  in  the  service  of  the  rebels,  and  rendering 
war  by  the  United  States  against  England,  in  sell-defence,  as 
necessary  as  if  it  were  sailing  under  her  own  flag. 

It  is  confidently  believed,  that  the  construction  thus  put 
upon  the  act  by  the  Court  is  in  direct  opposition  to  its  plain 
terras,  and  to  the  design  of  its  authors,  if  their  purpose  was  the 
protection  of  England's  neutral  rights  and  the  observance  of 
her  neutral  obligations,  and  not  merely  an  unworthy  pre- 
tence. 

The  terms  of  the  statute  arc  these :  "  If  any  person  within 
any  part  of  the  kingdom,  &c.,  <fec.,  shall  equip,  furnish,  fit  out, 
or  arm;  or  attempt  or  endeavor  so  to  do;  or  procure  to  he 
eqicipped,  &c.,  &c. ;  or  shall  knowingly  aid,  assist,  or  be  con- 
cerned in  the  equipping,  &c.,  &c.,  with  irdent  or  in  order 
that  such  ship  or  vessel  shall  be  employed  in  the  service  of  any 
foreign  power  as  a  transport  or  storeship,  or  with  intent  to 
cruise  or  commit  hostilities  against  another  foreign  power,  with 
whom  her  Majesty  shall  not  then  be  at  war,  —  every  such 
person  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  &c.,  <fec. ; 
and  every  such  ship  or  vessel  shall  he  forfeited.''^ 

One  of  the  principal  positions  taken  in  the  argument  of  the 
case,  and  upon  which  this  construction  of  the  Act  appears  to 
have  been  based,  or  which  seems  necessarily  implied  in  it,  is, 
that,  in  order  to  constitute  an  offence  under  the  statute,  "  the 
owners  of  the  vessel  (at  the  time  of  the  seizure)  must  intend 
to  use  it  against  some  state  or  community  in  friendsliip  with 
her  Majesty."  The  counsel  of  the  claimants,  in  his  argument, 
stated  the  point  thus :  that  the  seventh  section  "  was  directed 

12 


90  NEUTEAL    RELATIONS   OF 

against  a  person  who  was  supposed  to  equip,  fit  out,  or  own  a 
vessel,  with  the  intention  of  cruising  on  his  own  account, 
and  committing  hostilities  against  a  foreign  nation  ;  "  ''  that  it 
was  perfectly  competent  for  any  person  to  build  a  ship,  easily 
convertible  into  a  ship  of  war,  and  sell  that  ship  to  any  belli- 
gerent power ;  and  the  fact  that  the  seller  knew  that  she  was  to 
be  employed  as  a  war  vessel  had  nothing-  to  do  with  the  question." 
This  language  embraces,  and  must  have  been  intended  to  em- 
brace (as  otherwise  it  was  inopportune  and  unmeaning),  the 
case  where  the  vessel  was  built  designedly  for  a  ship  of  war  on 
a  contract  with  the  belligerent.  The  Court  took  no  exception 
to  this  statement  of  the  law,  and  must  be  supposed  to  have 
sanctioned  it,  —  if  it  be  not  indeed  necessarily  implied,  as  it 
seems  to  be,  in  the  doctrine,  that  the  vessel  must  be  armed 
and  ready  for  immediate  hostilities  before  any  offence  can 
have  been  committed,  and  the  reasons  assigned  for  it ;  and 
Earl  Russell,  in  his  Letter  of  August  31,  to  the  Emancipation 
Society,  advances  the  same  doctrine,  in  the  language  above 
quoted. 

But,  with  all  the  respect  due  to  either  tribunal,  it  is  believed 
that  any  such  doctrine  is  entirely  untenable.  The  offence 
created  by  the  statute  is  not  confined  to  equipping  and  arm- 
ing the  vessel  with  intent  so  to  use  her,  but  embraces  also  any 
such  equipping,  &c.,  with  intent  or  in  order  that  she  shall  be  so 
employed. 

And  that  any  person,  who,  in  fulfilment  of  a  contract  with 
a  belligerent  or  his  agent  for  the  construction,  equipment, 
furnishing,  fitting-out,  or  arming  of  a  ship  of  war,  knoAving 
that  he  intends  to  use  her  in  hostilities  against  his  enemy, 
does  equip,  furnish,  fit  out,  or  arm  her,  with  intent  or  in  order 
that  she  shall  be  so  employed,  or  does  attempt  or  endeavor  to 
do  so ;  does  procure  it  to  be  done,  or  does  knowingly  aid  or 
assist  or  is  concerned  in  so  doing,  —  seems  self-evident,  upon 
the  plainest  interpretation  of  the  terms  of  the  statute,  if  not 
upon  the  only  one  possible.     They  do  not,  in  letter  or  spirit. 


ENGLAND    AND    THE   UNITED   STATES.  91 

require  that  the  person  so  contracting,  or  so  employed,  or 
being  the  present  owner,  shall  himself  intend  so  to  use  her, 
but  only  that  she  shall  be  intended  to  be  so  used  by  the  parties 
who  may  be  the  owners  at  the  time  of  the  seizure,  or  by 
the  parties  for  whom  she  is  being  constructed,  equipped,  or 
armed,  although  the  legal  property  may  not  have  passed  from 
the  contractor,  provided  that  he  knows  that  she  is  intended  for 
such  use  by  them;  for  if  his  knowledge  of  such  intended  uso 
would  not  constitute  a  legal  intention  on  his  part,  within  the 
statute,  that  she  should  be  so  employed  (as  it  is  believed  it 
clearly  would),  it  certainly  proves  that  he  was  constructing, 
equipping,  or  arming  her  in  order  that  she  should  be  so. 

Further,  it  is  manifest  that  this  doctrine,  that  the  owners 
at  the  time  of  seizure  must  intend  personally  so  to  use  her, 
renders  the  statute  utterly  and  contemptibly  useless  ;  for, 
upon  such  a  construction  of  it,  parties  might  safely  contract 
with  the  belligerent  for  the  delivery  to  him  of  a  ship  of  war 
fully  armed  and  equipped,  ready  for  an  immediate  cruise,  and 
with  full  knowledge  of  such  intended  instant  use,  and  hold 
her  thus  prepared  at  a  remote  place  anywhere  within  the 
verge  of  three  miles  from  the  seacoast,  to  be  delivered  at  an 
opportune  moment  for  making  her  safe  departure  certain, 
— and  yet  they  be  all  the  while  guilty  of  no  offence,  and  the 
vessel  not  liable  to  forfeiture. 

If  the  framers  of  the  statute  had  intended  that  the  parties 
equipping,  arming,  &c.,  must  design  such  use  of  the  vessel 
by  themselves,  in  order  to  constitute  the  offence,  they  would 
have  said,  ''  with  intent  so  to  use  said  vessel,"  and  not  have 
adopted  the  so  much  more  comprehensive  phraseology,  "  ivith 
intent  or  in  order  that  such  vessel  shall  be  so  employed." 

Another  and  a  prominent  position,  taken  by  the  Court  and 
assumed  by  Earl  Russell  in  his  Letter,  was,  that  the  vessel 
must  have  been  actually  armed,  in  order  to  constitute  any 
offence  under  the  statute :  so  that  no  preparation,  nor  act  done 
for  the  preparing  of  a  ship  of  war,  although  under  a  contract 


92  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

with  a  belligerent,  and  with  full  knowledge  of  his  intended 
use  of  her,  renders  any  party  concerned  guilty  of  a  breach  of 
the  statute,  or  the  vessel  liable  to  forfeiture,  unless  an 
actual  arming  shall  have  taken  place. 

In  order  to  sustain  this  construction,  it  is  manifestly  neces- 
sary to  show,  that  the  words  "  equip,"  ''  furnish,"  "  fit  out," 
"  or  arm,"  all  and  each,  mean  the  same  thing;  and  the  Lord 
Chief  Baron,  if  correctly  reported,  undertakes  to  demonstrate 
this  proposition  in  this  manner.  He  says,  that,  "  according  to 
Webster^ s  Dictionary ^  equipping  is  furnishing  with  arms ; " 
and  "  that  furnishing  is  given  in  other  dictionaries  as  the 
same  thing  as  equipping."  Whether  "fitting  out"  means 
also  the  same  thing,  is  not  stated,  but  it  must  be  presumed 
to  be  implied.     Perhaps  there  is  a  hiatus  in  the  report. 

Now,  but  for  such  grave  authority  to  the  contrary,  one 
would  be  apt  to  conclude,  that  the  mere  circumstance,  that 
these  several  expressive  words  were  thus  disjunctively  used, 
was  pretty  clear  proof  that  some  distinction  between  them 
was  understood  and  recognized ;  else  why  use  any  but  the 
single  word  "  arm  "  ?  If  arming  was  to  be  the  only  thing 
provided  against,  that  single  word  would  have  sufficed,  and 
have  left  no  room  for  doubt ;  and  the  others,  being  mere 
superfluities,  could  add  nothing  to  its  strength,  as  being 
mere  synomymes. 

But  it  is  obvious  that  the  "  equipping,"  "  furnishing,"  and 
"  fitting-out  "  of  a  ship  of  war  embrace  many  things  besides 
her  arms,  and  of  not  less  essential  importance.  She  could 
with  no  greater  propriety  be  said  to  be  "  equipped,"  "  fur- 
nished," or  "  fitted  out,"  without  sails  or  steam-engines 
or  other  motive  power,  or  without  anchors  or  provisions,  or 
without  a  crew,  than  without  arms  ;  and  it  seems  to  ordinary 
common  sense,  that  he  who  supj)lies,  or  applies,  either  of 
these  essential  elements  of  a  full  "  equipment,"  "  furnishing," 
or  "  fitting-out,"  aids  or  assists,  or  is  concerned  in,  or  at- 
tempts or  endeavors  to  effect,  such  equipping,  fitting-out,  or 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  93 

furnishing,  quite  as  much  as  ho  who  supplies,  or  puts  on 
board,  the  guns  and  ammunition.  And  surely,  in  construing 
a  statute  designed  to  prevent  the  perpetration  of  crimes 
against  the  State  herself  (in  derogation  and  defiance  of  her 
majesty  as  a  nation,  and  tending  to  impair  her  faithful  obser- 
vance of  her  obligations  to  other  nations,  and  endanger  her 
peaceful  relations  with  them),  it  must  be  esteemed  within 
the  bounds  of  a  reasonable  interpretation  to  apply  this  lan- 
guage of  the  statute  to  him  who  constructs  the  ship,  or  fits 
her,  with  all  the  various  adaptations  and  appliances,  for  the 
reception  and  use  of  her  specified  armament  (all  which  must 
be  skilfully  and  carefully  fitted  with  peculiar  reference  to  its 
nature  and  use),  whether  he  build  her  with  such  preparation 
or  fitting,  or,  having  procured  one  for  the  purpose,  he  so 
prepare  or  fit  her.  Surely  he  who  thus  prepares  the  whole 
foundation  of  the  superstructure  —  the  ship  herself,  and  all 
her  adaptations  to  the  end  designed  —  may  be  reasonably 
accounted  as  one  engaged  in  equipping,  fitting  out,  or  furnish- 
ing her,  or  procuring  it  to  be  done,  or  aiding  or  assisting  or 
being  concerned  therein. 

But  that  these  words  were  not  intended  to  be  used  as  beinjr 
synonymous  with  "  arming,"  is  manifest  from  the  application  of 
them  in  the  same  section,  and  in  the  same  manner,  to  a  store- 
ship  or  transport.  The  language  of  the  statute  is,  "  If  any 
person  shall  equip,  furnish,  fit  out,  or  arm,  &c.,  &c.,  any  ship 
or  vessel,  with  intent  or  in  order  that  such  vessel  shall  be 
employed,  &c.,  &c.,  as  a  transport  or  store-sJup,  or  with  intent 
to  cruise,  or  commit  hostilities,  &c.,  &c."  Now,  although  a 
transport  or  store-ship  may  have  arms  on  board,  it  certainly  is 
no  necessary  or  uniform  part  of  her  equipment,  furniture,  or 
fitting-out;  and  the  statute  in  thus  placing  them  and  cruisers, 
or  ships  intended  for  hostilities,  in  the  disjunctive  relation, 
plainly  recognizes  the  distinction  between  them  and  armed 
vessels. 


94  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

Upon  a  fair  construction,  therefore,  of  the  statute,  in  refer- 
ence to  its  language  and  its  design,  it  is  beh'eved  to  demand, 
that  ever^  one  who  takes  part  in  the  preparation  of  a  ship  of 
war  for  the  service  of  a  belligerent  in  hostilities  against  a 
friendly  power  (knowing  of  such  intended  use)  is  guilty  of  an 
offence  under  it,  whether  that  part  be  in  building  or  fitting 
her  for  that  purpose,  or  in  furnishing  her  motive-power  or 
armament,  or  any  other  essential  element  of  her  capacity  as 
such  ship  of  war  ;  —  if,  indeed,  the  statute  does  not  also  go  fur- 
ther, and  demand  that  every  one,  knowingly  engaged  in  any 
preparation  of  her  for  such  use,  be  considered  thus  guilty, 
although  such  preparation  may  not  be  of  a  character  peculiar 
to  a  ship  of  war,  but  such  as  is  common  for  all  vessels  about  to 
proceed  to  sea ;  the  criminal  intention  connected  with  any 
act  of  equij)j)ing,  flemishing,  or  fitting  out,  constituting  it  a 
crime  within  the  terms  of  the  Act.  And  such,  we  are  happy 
to  know,  is  the  settled  doctrine  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  In  the  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Quincy 
(6  Peters's  Rep.,  p.  445),  before  cited  (in  No.  IV. )>  ^^^  de- 
fendant was  charged  in  the  indictment  with  "  being  knowingly 
concerned  in  the  fitting-out  of  a  certain  vessel  called  the 
'  Bolivar,'  with  intent  to  commit  hostilities,"  &c. ;  and,  in 
another  count,  with  intent  "  that  the  said  vessel  should  be  so 
employed,"  &c.,  <fec. :  and  the  main  point  of  defence  was,  that 
the  vessel  "  was  not  armed,  or  at  all  prepared  for  war,  or  in 
condition  to  commit  hostilities,  when  she  left  Baltimore."  But 
the  Court  decided,  "  that  it  was  not  necessary  that  the  vessel, 
when  she  left  Baltimore  for  St.  Thomas,  and  during  the  voyage 
to  St.  Thomas,  was  armed,  or  in  a  condition  to  commit  hostili- 
ties, in  order  to  find  the  defendant  guilty  of  the  oflfence  charged 
in  the  indictment ;  "  that  "  an  attempt  to  fit  out  and  arm  is 
made  an  off'ence,  and  that  this  is  certainly  doing  something 
short  of  a  complete  fitting-out  and  arming ;  "  that  "  to  attempt 
to  do  an  act,  does  not,  either  in  law  or  common  parlance,  imply 
a  completion  of  the  act,  or  any  definite  progress  towards  it, 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  95 

but  that  any  effort  or  endeavor  to  effect  it  will  satisfy  the  terms 
of  the  law ;  "  and  that  "  the  offence  consists  principally  in  the 
intention  with  whicli  the  preparations  to  commit  hostilities 
were  made." 

This  case,  too,  is  in  point  in  reference  to  the  true  construc- 
tion of  the  words  "  equipping,  furnishing,  fitting-out,  or  arm- 
ing ; "  showing  that  the  word  "  or,^^  thus  used,  designates 
arming  to  be  a  distinct  offence  from  that  of  fUting-out,  etc. 

Such  is  the  construction  put  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  upon  substantially  the  same  statute,  in  the  just 
and  generous  spirit  of  interpretation  with  which  it  contem- 
plates the  enactment  as  designed  alike  for  the  protection  of 
our  own  neutral  rights  and  dignity,  and  for  enabling  us  to 
discharge  our  obligations  to  other  nations ;  and  it  seems  in 
striking  contrast  with  that  construction,  which  would  narrow 
its  design  to  the  protection  of  our  own  selfish  interest  only, 
and  with  a  strictness  of  interpretation  that  renders  it  little 
better  than  a  subterfuge  or  a  pretence.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  the  Lord  Chief  Baron  had  not  the  opportunity  of  consultr- 
ing  the  grave  authority  of  such  a  case,  decided  by  the  highest 
tribunal  of  the  land  in  which  the  statute  originated,  and  from 
which  his  own  Government  had  adopted  it,  instead  of  relying 
upon  a  Dictionary,  whose  amplitude  of  definition  is  more  com- 
mendable for  its  convenience  to  miscellaneous  readers  than 
for  philological  accuracy. 

There  is  another  class  of  cases  strictly  analogous,  and  con- 
firmatory of  this  doctrine,  which  arose  upon  the  construction 
of  the  statute  against  the  Slave-trade  Act,  20th  April,  1818 
(ch.  373),  passed  not  long  before  that  which  is  tlie  subject  of 
the  present  discussion.  That  statute  provides,  that  "  no  citi- 
zen, &c.,  shall,  for  himself  or  any  other  person,  either  as 
master,  factor,  or  owner,  build,  Jit  out,  equip,  load,  or  otherwise 
prepare,  any  ship  or  vessel,  &c.,  &c.,  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
curing any  negro,  &c.,  from  any  kingdom,  &c.,  to  be  trans- 
ported to  any  place  to  be  held  or  disposed  of  as  a  slave  ;  "  and 


96  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

"  if  any  ship  or  vessel  shall  be  so  built,  fitted  out,  equiioped, 
laden,  or  otherwise  prepared.,  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,"  she 
shall  be  forfeited.  In  the  case  United  States  v.  Gooding 
(12  Wheaton's  Reports,  p.  460),  the  defendant  was  indicted 
for  fitting  out  the  ship,  with  intent  so  to  employ  her.  Among 
other  points  taken  by  the  defendant,  it  was  contended  that 
the  count  charged  d,  fitting-out  in  the  port  of  Baltimore,  which, 
according  to  the  true  legal  interpretation  of  the  words  in  an 
indictment,  means  a  complete  equiptment ;  and  that  evidence  of 
a  partial  equipment  in  Baltimore,  and  a  further  equipment  at 
St.  Thomas,  would  not  support  the  charge.  On  this  point, 
the  Court  ruled,  that,  if  the  vessel  sailed  from  Baltimore  for 
the  p)urpose  of  employment  in  the  slave-trade,  her  fitment  was 
complete  for  all  the  purposes  of  the  Act ;  that  it  was  ''  not 
necessary  that  every  equipment  for  a  slave  voyage  should 
have  been  taken  on  board  at  Baltimore,  or,  indeed,  any  equip- 
ments exclusively  applicable  to  such  a  voyage;^'  that  ''the 
statute  punishes  the  fitting-out  of  the  vessel  with  intent  to 
employ  her  in  the  slave-trade,  however  innocent  the  equipment 
may  be  luhen  designed  for  a  lawful  voyage ;  "  that  "  it  is  the 
act  combined  with  the  intent,  and  not  either  separately,  which 
is  punishable ;  "  and  further,  "  that  any  preparations  for  a 
slave  voyage  which  clearly  manifest  or  accompany  the  illegal 
intent,  even  though  incomplete  and  imperfect,  and  before  the 
DEPARTURE  of  the  vcsscl  from  port,  do  yet  constitute  a  fitting- 
out  within  the  purview  of  the  statute  : "  and  the  Court  refer 
to  several  other  cases  sustaining  this  construction  of  the 
statute. 

There  can,  therefore,  be  no  possible  doubt,  but  that,  upon 
the  facts  understood  to  be  established  in  the  case  of  the 
''  Alexandra,"  as  above  stated,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  would  decree  that  the  vessel  had  become  for- 
feited, so  far  as  the  decision  might  depend  upon  the  question 
of  her  being  equipped  or  fitted  out  within  the  purview  of  the 
statute. 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATES.  97 

It  was  confidently  hoped  that  this  Number  would  relieve 
the  reader  who  has  followed  this  discussion  from  any  further 
tax  upon  his  patience;  but  its  already  great  length  precludes 
the  consideration  of  one  other,  and  perhaps  the  main,  argu- 
ment for  the  defence  in  the  case  of  the  "  Alexandra,"  which 
remains  to  be  examined. 

19  September,  1863. 


13 


98  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 


XI. 


FOREIGN  ENLISTMENT  ACT.  THE  "ALEXANDRA,"  AND  TURRETED 
RAMS.  LAW  OF  NATIONS.  LIABILITY  OF  ENGLAND.  POSITION 
OF    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

The  main  argument,  however,  upon  which  the  Court  relied, 
in  deciding  the  case  of  the  "Alexandra,"  seems  to  have 
been,  that  a  neutral  has  the  right  to  sell  a  ship  of  war 
to  a  belligerent,  without  any  infringement  of  the  Foreign 
Enlistment  Act  or  of  the  law  of  nations.  The  proposition 
was  thus  stated.  After  reading  some  passages  from  Ameri- 
can law-books,  which  are  not  cited  in  the  report,  and  the 
pertinency  or  precise  bearing  of  which  cannot  therefore  be 
judged  of,  his  Lordship  said  :  "  These,  Gentlemen,  are  authori- 
ties which  show,  that,  when  two  belligerents  are  carrying  on 
war,  a  neutral  power  may  supply,  without  any  breach  of 
international  law  and  without  a  breach  of  the  Foreign  Enlist- 
ment Act,  munitions  of  war,  gunpowder,  every  description  of 
arms,  every  thing,  in  fact,  that  can  be  used  for  the  destruc- 
tion of  human  beings.  Why  should  ships  be  an  exception  ? 
I  am  of  opinion,  in  point  of  law,  they  are  not."  "If  Birming- 
ham, or  any  other  town,  may  supply  any  quantity  of  munitions 
of  war  of  various  kinds  for  the  destruction  of  life,  wh37-  object 
to  ships  ?  Why  should  ships  alone  be  in  themselves  con- 
traband ?  "  "A  man  may  make  a  vessel,  and  offer  it  for 
sale  ;  "  and,  "  if  a  man  may  build  a  vessel  for  the  purpose  of 
offering  it  for  sale  to  either  of  the  belligerent  parties,  may  he 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATES.  99 

not  execute  an  order  for  it  ?  That  appears  to  me  to  be  a 
matter  of  course."  And  he  concluded,  as  before  recited,  by 
saying :  "  If  you  think  that  the  object  was  to  furnish,  ft  out, 
equip,  and  arm  that  vessel  at  Liverpool,  that  is  a  different 
matter  [meaning  obviously  the  object  of  the  persons  then 
equipping  her,  to  equip  her  for  their  own  use]  ;  but  if  you 
think  the  object  really  was  to  build  a  ship  in  obedience  to  an 
order  in  compliance  with  a  contract,  leaving  those  who  bought 
it  to  inaJce  ivhat  use  they  thought  ft  of  it,  then  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  Foreig-n  Enlistment  Act  has  not  been  broken." 

The  prominent  point  understood  to  be  decided  by  the 
Court  is,  that  the  builders  or  owners  of  a  vessel  which  has 
been  built  for  a  ship  of  war  in  a  neutral  country,  and  which 
they  are  equipping  under  a  contract  with  a  belligerent  power, 
or  the  citizens  of  one,  or  persons  in  its  service,  to  be  delivered 
in  that  country,  to  be  used  as  it  or  they  may  see  fit  (the 
builders  or  owners  knowing,  or  having  reasonable  cause  to 
believe,  that  it  is  intended  to  be  used  in  committing  imme- 
diate hostilities  against  another  power  at  peace  with  the 
neutral),  —  are  not  guilty  of  any  offence  against  the  statute, 
provided  that  they  do  not  themselves  intend  to  participate  in 
such  use. 

The  same  principle  is  laid  down  by  an  English  author  (and 
one  of  the  ablest  of  those  who  have  written  upon  questions 
arising  out  of  the  Rebellion)  in  these  terms  :  "  The  Enlistment 
Act  is  directed,  not  against  the  intention  of  selling,  but  the 
intention  of  making  war.  It  prohibits  ivarlike  enterprises ; 
but  it  does  not  interfere  with  commercial  adventure.  A 
subject  of  the  Crown  may  sell  a  ship  of  ivar,  as  he  may  sell  a 
musket,  to  either  belligerent  with  impunity ;  nay,  he  may 
even  despatch  it  for  sale  to  the  belligerent  port :  but  he 
may  not  take  part  in  the  overt  act  of  making  war  upon  a 
people  with  whom  his  sovereign  is  at  peace."  Again  :  "  The 
authors  of  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  were  not  so  absurd 
and  illogical  as  to  have  forbidden  the  equipping  and  arming 


100  NEUTEAL    RELATIONS    OF 

of  a  sliip  for  sale,  whilst  they  did  not  forbid  the  making  and 
selhng  of  a  park  of  aitillery."  ^ 

The  authority  which  seems  to  be  mainly  relied  upon  as 
maintaining  these  propositions,  and  that  doubtless  to  which 
the  Court  alluded,  is  the  case  of  the  "  Santissima  Trinidad," 
80  often  above  referred  to.  But  that  it  falls  far  short  of 
establishing  any  such  proposition,  is  evident  upon  its 
facts,  and  the  reasons  assigned  for  its  decision.  In  that  case, 
the  capturing  vessel  had  not  been  delivered  to  the  belligerent 
within  the  United  States,  nor  had  she  been  delivered  in  the 
country  of  the  belligerent  under  any  contract  with  him.  Up 
to  the  time  of  her  sailing  from  the  United  States,  and  until  her 
arrival  in  Brazil,  she  was  held  by  her  owners  as  a  subject  of 
use  or  sale,  at  their  entire  pleasure,  with  no  fixed  purpose 
beyond  that  of  a  mercantile  adventure  ;  and  not  under  any 
contract  with  the  belligerent,  or  expectation  of  sale  to  him, 
beyond  that  existing  in  the  mind  of  any  adventurers,  when 
sending  any  other  articles,  contraband  of  war,  to  the  country 
of  a  belligerent,  which  he  may  or  may  not  buy,  and  of  the 
safe  arrival  of  which,  free  from  capture  by  his  enemy,  and  of 
the  subsequent  purchase  of  which  by  the  belligerent,  they 
take  the  hazard.  And  it  was  upon  this  precise  ground  that 
the  Court  maintained,  that,  being  a  merely  mercantile  adven- 
ture, it  constituted  no  violation  of  the  Enlistment  Act.  The 
whole  reasoning  of  the  Court  implies  the  converse  proposition, 
that,  if  she  had  sailed  under  any  contract  between  the  owners 
and  the  belligerent,  or  under  any  other  circumstance  implying 
a  ^^ fixed  intention  "  on  the  part  of  her  owners,  at  the  time  of 
sailing,  that  she  should  be  employed  in  his  service  in  hostili- 
ties against  a  friendly  power,  it  would  have  constituted  an 
offence  wathin  the  statute;  and  the  cases  of  the  "Gran  Para," 
and  of  the  United  States  v.  Quincy,  are  confirmatory  of  that 
position. 

The  proposition,  therefore,  that  the  subjects  of  a  neutral 

*  r.etters  bv  Historicus,  no.  168,,  171. 


ENGLAND    AND   THE    UNITED    STATES.  101 

power  may  sell  a  ship  of  war  to  a  belligerent  in  the  neu- 
tral country,  is  not  sustained  by  any  judicial  decision  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  is  considered  to  be  more  or  less  in  direct  opposi- 
tion to  every  decision  that  has  any  bearing  upon  the  subject. 

The  argument  adduced  in  support  of  it  is  believed  to  be 
equally  untenable.  That  argument  is,  that,  inasmuch  as  the 
neutral  has  the  right  to  sell  arms  and  ammunition,  or  a  park 
of  artillery,  to  the  belligerent,  he  has,  by  parity  of  reason, 
the  same  right  to  sell  a  ship  of  war. 

Now,  if  it  were  true  (which  it  is  not),  that,  by  the  law  of 
nations  and  the  law  of  England,  it  is  lawful  for  a  subject 
of  the  Crown,  in  all  cases,  to  sell  to  a  belligerent,  in  England, 
arms,  artillery,  and  other  munitions  of  war,  and  that,  if  no 
prohibition  had  been  interposed,  it  would,  for  the  same  reason, 
be  lawful  to  construct  and  equip  for,  or  to  sell  to,  him  an 
armed  ship  of  war ;  still,  the  right  of  the  Government  to 
prohibit  the  construction  or  equipping  or  sale  of  such  a  ship, 
while  leaving  the  sale  of  arms,  <fec.,  unforbidden,  is  undeniable; 
and  it  will  not  be  contended,  that,  if  it  should  do  so,  express 
provisions  of  the  statute,  made  for  that  purpose,  are  to  be 
construed  as  not  having  been  so  intended.  And  this,  we 
maintain,  is  precisely  what  the  English  Government  has  done 
by  the  Foreign  Enlistment  Act ;  and  the  reasons  for  it  are 
seemingly  so  manifest  and  imperative,  that  in  all  humility, 
and  without  the  slightest  disrespect  towards  those  who  main- 
tain the  position  in  question,  it  is  thought  somewhat  strange, 
that  such  right  to  furnish  arms,  and  the  right  to  furnish  a 
ship  of  ivar,  should  have  been  considered  as  parallel  cases 
and  founded  in  equal  reason. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  great  object  of  the  En- 
listment Act,  and  the  only  one,  so  far  as  the  question  in  hand 
is  concerned,  is  to  prevent  or  punish  the  violation  of  the  law 
of  nations,  which  prohibits  the  JiLiing-out  of  navcd  expeditions 
or  enterprises  in  a  neutral  country  for  the  service  of  a  bellige- 
rent in  hostilities  against  a  friendly  power. 


102  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS  OF 

Now,  it  is  very  evident,  that  the  mere  selling  of  arms 
and  munitions  of  war  to  such  belligerent,  in  a  neutral 
country,  leaving  to  him  the  venture  of  transporting  them  to  his 
own  country,  or  to  any  other  place  where  he  may  have  law- 
ful right  to  use  them,  or  from  ivhich  he  may  laivfully  issue 
with  them  in  immediate  use  against  his  enemy,. —  or  a  mere 
contract  to  deliver  them  to  him  in  his  own  country,  the 
vendor  taking  the  risk  of  their  capture  as  contraband  on 
the  voyage,  —  is  but  a  remote  and  comparatively  harmless 
act,  if  suitable  provision  be  made  to  prevent  the  uniting  of 
them  with  a  vessel  of  war  in  the  neutral  country  ;  inasmuch 
as  in  neither  case  can  such  arms  be  used  in  immediate  hos- 
tilities, as  parts  of  any  expedition  or  enterprise  fitted  out  in  the 
neutral  country,  nor  until  they  shall  have  become  the  elements 
of  one  rightfully  commenced  in  the  belligerent's  own  country, 
or  under  some  jurisdiction  rendering  it  lawful ;  and  so  there 
would  be  but  little  danger  that  such  manufacture  and  sale  of 
them  could  be  made  instrumental  in  any  violation  of  the 
law. 

But  the  sale  and  delivery  of  a  ship  of  war  to  the  bellige- 
rent, armed  and  ready  for  sea,  or  the  construction  or  equip- 
ment of  one  ready  for  the  immediate  reception  and  use  of  her 
armament,  is  a  wholly  different  transaction ;  and,  if  lawful,  is 
not  only  far  more  available  for  the  perpetration  of  the  crime 
prohibited,  than  any  sale  of  arms  or  munitions  of  war  could 
be,  but  is  sure  to  he  successfully  resorted  to  for  that  purpose  ;  as 
the  experience  in  England,  where  its  lawfulness  is  asserted, 
has  most  abundantly  proved.  Arms,  and  munitions  of  war, 
cannot  carry  ships  to  sea,  nor  be  used  in  naval  expeditions 
without  them ;  but  ships,  fitted  for  their  reception  and  use, 
can  carry  them,  a7id  would  certainly  he  made  to  do  so,  under 
some  subterfuge,  concealment,  or  co-incident  arrangement, 
and  so  entire  naval  expeditions  would  be  fitted  out  to  plunder 
or  prey  upon  the  friendly  belligerent,  if  the  constructing  or 
equipping  of  such  ships  were  permitted. 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  103 

There  appears,  therefore,  great  reason  why  such  ct)nstruc- 
tion  or  equipping  or  sale  of  a  ship  of  war  should  be  prohibited, 
while  the  sale  of  arms  should  remain  unforbidden,  and  left  to 
the  ordinary  course  of  trade  ;  the  proliibition  of  the  former 
rendering  the  allowance  of  the  latter  harmless  (or  not  subject 
to  such  frequent  or  dangerous  abuse  as  would  reasonably 
require  its  suppression),  and  being  all  that  the  necessity  of 
the  case  can  be  justly  thought  to  demand  ;  and,  if  so,  the 
argument  so  much  relied  upon  is  of  little  weight. 

But  the  foundation  of  this  argument  Avill  not  bear  exami- 
nation. It  rests  upon  the  unlimited  proposition,  that  the 
neutral  has  the  right  to  sell  to  the  belligerent,  arnis  and 
munitions  of  war ;  and  thence  it  is  inferred,  that  he  must 
have  an  equal  right  to  sell  ships  of  war  also.  But  this 
proposition,  in  the  unlimited  terms  in  which  it  is  stated, 
is  untrue,  and  is  wanting  in  the  elements  which  alone  could 
make  it  the  basis  of  such  an  argument.  So  far  is  it  from 
being  true,  that  the  neutral  has  an  unqualified  right  to  sell 
arms  and  munitions  of  war  to  a  belligerent  in  the  neutral 
country,  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the  law  of  nations  prohibits 
any  such  sale  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  armament 
or  warlike  force  of  any  ship  of  war  belonging  to  him,  which 
may  be  within  the  neutral's  jurisdiction ;  and  this  same 
Enlistment  Act,  in  the  section  following  that  prohibiting  the 
equipping,  tfcc,  of  a  ship  of  war,  enacts,  that  if  any  person 
shall,  ^'  by  the  addition  of  any  equipment  for  luar,  increase  or 
augment,  or  procure  to  be  increased  or  augmented,  or  shall 
knowingly  be  concerned  in  increasing  or  augmenting,  the  war- 
like force  of  any  ship  or  vessel  of  war,  or  cruiser,  or  other 
armed  vessel,  which,  at  the  time  of  her  arrival  in  any  part  of 
the  kingdom,  was  a  ship  of  war  or  cruiser  or  armed  vessel  in 
the  service  of  any  foreign  prince,"  <fec.,  he  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  be  subject  to  fine  and  imprison- 
ment. 

The  object  of  the  statute  is  the  same  in  both   cases,  and. 


104  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

if  interpreted  in  the  manner  we  contend  for,  is  admirably 
adapted  to  effect  that  object ;  namely,  the  prevention  of  the 
fitting-out  of  naval  expeditions  in  the  neutral  country,  in 
the  service  of  a  belligerent.  This  was  done  by  the  seventh 
section,  forbidding  the  equipping  and  fitting-out  of  ships  of 
war,  which,  if  faithfully  carried  into  effect,  would  also  prevent 
the  use  of  any  arms  obtained  there  for  that  purpose ;  and  by 
the  eighth,  forbidding  the  sale  of  arms  in  the  only  other  case 
in  which  such  use  could  be  made  of  them. 

And  surely  it  must  be  accounted  marvellous  logic  in  juris- 
prudence to  construe  a  statute,  enacted  for  the  purpose  of 
protecting  the  rights  of  a  neutral  nation  from  violation,  and 
of  assisting  in  the  fulfilment  of  her  neutral  obligations,  in  such 
a  manner,  as  to  make  the  sale  of  a  cannon,  a  musket,  or  a  cut- 
lass, to  a  vessel  of  war  belonging  to  a  belligerent,  an  offence 
deserving  fine  and  imprisonment  under  it,  but  the  equipment 
or  sale  of  a  mighty  ship  of  war  for  his  service  an  innocent 
transaction,  which  it  was  not  intended  to  reach,  and  cannot 
prevent. 

If  these  views  be  correct,  and  if  the  facts  be,  that  the 
"  Alexandra  "  was  a  ship  of  war  in  process  of  construction,  on 
a  contract  with  the  rebels,  or  persons  employed  by  them,  to 
be  used  in  their  service  in  committing  hostilities  against  the 
United  States,  it  follows  that  the  case  falls  clearly  within 
the  provision  of  the  English  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  and 
that  she  should  be  decreed  to  be  forfeited ;  and,  if  this  should 
be  the  result  of  that  trial,  an  end  will  be  put  to  this  agitating 
and  painful  question,  which  has  so  long  and  so  seriously 
threatened  the  peace  of  the  two  nations  ;  and  opportunity  will 
be  again  presented  for  bringing  them  into  accord  in  their 
understanding  and  appreciation  of  their  reciprocal  rights  and 
duties  as  neutrals. 

If,  however,  the  final  decision  shall  be  adverse  to  these 
views,  although  it  will  be,  of  course,  conclusive  as  to  the 
construction    of   the   English   Enlistment    Act    upon   foreign 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  105 

nations  as  well  as  upon  English  subjects,  and  upon  the  per- 
sonal liability  or  property  involved  in  the  suit,  yet,  so  iar  as 
it  may  purport  to  be  founded  in  the  law  of  nations,  it  will  be 
of  no  further  obligation  upon  them  than  its  intrinsic  con- 
formity to  that  law  may  import.  No  nation  can  be  bound  by 
the  judgment  of  a  court  of  any  other  nation  upon  a  question 
of  international  law,  but  may  nevertheless  insist  upon  its  own 
interpretation  of  that  law,  if  at  variance  with  such  judgment, 
even  to  the  ultima  ratio  regum.  If,  therefore,  the  English  Ap- 
pellate Court  shall  determine  that  the  acts  complained  of  are 
in  violation,  neither  of  their  Enlistment  Act,  nor  of  the  law  of 
nations,  while  we  shall  be  concluded  by  the  judgment  upon 
the  former,  we  shall  be  at  liberty  to  deny  the  correctness  of 
it  upon  the  latter,  and  shall  retain  tlie  right  to  insist  upon 
redress  for  what  we  deem  such  violation. 

The  case  of  turreted  Rams  is,  however,  of  a  very  different 
character,  and  requires  no  elaborate  discussion.  They,  when 
completed  and  equipped  for  sea,  although  without  arms,  are, 
as  has  before  been  stated  (in  No.  IL),  powerful  and  effectual 
ships  of  wa?' ;  their  peculiar  construction,  their  beaks,  their 
motive  power,  and  other  capacities  for  offensive  warfare,  being 
sufficient  for  effective  hostilities  upon  commerce,  and  upon 
ordinary  vessels  of  war,  without  the  aid  of  guns.  The  pre- 
paration, therefore,  of  one  such  for  the  service  of  a  belligerent, 
although  unfurnished  with  arms  in  the  usual  meaning  of  that 
word,  is  the  fitting-out  of  a  naval  enterprise  or  expedition, 
and  her  departure  is  the  departure  of  one,  as  truly  as  would 
be  the  fitting-out  and  departure  of  a  vessel  fully  equipped 
and  armed  as  a  ship  of  war  in  the  ordinary  mode  of  equipping 
and  arming  hitherto  adopted. 

If,  therefore,  they  shall  be  permitted  to  be  constructed  and 

fitted  out  or  equipped  in  England,  and  to  leave  her  in,  or  for, 

the  service  of  the  rebels,  no  doubt  is  entertained,  that  a  gross 

and  palpable  violation  of  the  law  of  nations,  in  regard  to  the 

neutral  obligations  of  England  to  the  United  States,  will  have 

14 


106  NEUTEAL    EELATIONS    OF 

been  perpetrated,  which  would  justify  an  immediate  declara- 
tion of  war  against  her. 

It  seems  impossible  that  the  construction,  fitting-out,  and 
preparation  for  departure,  of  such  vessels,  could  escape  the 
notice  of  the  Government,  unless  wilfully  blind.  The  only 
powers  at  war,  for  whose  service  they  could  be  wanted,  are 
the  United  States  and  the  rebels.  That  they  are  not  designed 
for  the  United  States,  is  perfectly  well  known  ;  and  that  such 
ships  were  not  designed  for  any  other  nation,  could  be  easily 
ascertained  at  the  several  legations  in  London.  Nothing, 
therefore,  seems  wanting  to  put  tlie  Government  on  its  guard, 
and  to  enable  it  to  interfere,  if  disposed  to  do  its  duty.  No 
pretence  that  they  were  building  for,  or  belonged  to,  subjects 
of  Prance,  or  were  under  the  shadow  of  the  French  flag, 
could  avail  to  protect  them  ;  for  Frenchmen  have  no  more 
right  to  build  ships  of  war  in  England,  to  serve  against  a 
power  in  friendship  with  her,  than  Englishmen  or  the  sub- 
jects of  the  adverse  belligerent.  Their  construction  and 
escape,  therefore,  would  seem  accounted  for  only  by  substan- 
tial complicity  with  the  rebels. 

It  has  thus  been  attempted  to  show,  that  the  Government 
of  England  has,  in  her  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  when  faith- 
fully applied,  ample  means  for  suppressing  the  fitting-out  of 
ships  of  war  for  the  rebel  service,  and  that  it  is  their  duty 
so  to  use  it. 

But,  after  all,  this  is  but  one,  and  perhaps  the  narrowest 
and  least  important,  view  to  be  taken  of  a  subject  of  such  (it 
ma}''  well  be  said)  infinite  importance,  —  involving  not  only,  as 
it  may,  the  continuance  of  the  present  peace,  but,  as  it  must, 
the  future  permanent  relations,  of  two  great  nations,  kindred 
in  blood,  religion,  literature,  devotion  to  constitutional  free- 
dom, and  all  that  touches  the  great  interests  of  humanity. 

The  Foreign  Enlistment  Act  is  merely  a  municipal  law, —  a 
mere  instrument  or  machine  constructed  for  the  convenience 
of  the  Government,  to  aid  it  in  the  discharge  of  its  domestic 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  107 

duties  in  reference  to  its  own  security,  and  to  its  relations 
with  other  nations.  This  statute  adds  nothing  to,  and  can 
take  nothing  from,  the  obligations  of  the  nation  enacting  it 
towards  others  ;  nor  is  the  extent  of  its  efficiency  or  ineffi- 
ciency of  the  least  importance  in  any  question  between  that 
nation  and  others,  excepting  only  in  as  far  as  it  may  indicate 
the  disposition  to  be  faithful  to  them.  If  it  is  ample  for  the 
protection  of  their  rights  against  violation  of  neutral  obliga- 
tions, it  is  no  more  than  it  ought  to  be.  If  it  is  not,  it  is  the 
fault  of  the  nation  enacting  it,  and  relieves  her  not  from  one 
jot  or  tittle  of  all  she  owes  to  them. 

But  there  is  a  higher  law,  —  the  law  of  nations,  — with  no 
tribunal  indeed  for  its  final  decision,  no  executive  authority 
for  its  forcible  execution,  and  no  code  other  than  that  found 
in  the  fundamental  principles  of  right  and  wrong  working  in 
the  heart  of  man  in  all  civilized  nations,  —  but  acknowledged 
as  the  supreme  law,  which  every  nation  is  bound  to  obey,  and 
the  observance  of  which  every  one  has  the  right  to  vindicate 
and  enforce. 

This  law,  as  universally  acknowledged,  prohibits  the  fitting- 
out  of  naval  expeditions  in  a  neutral  country,  by  or  for  the 
service  of  a  belligerent,  for  the  purpose  of  committing  hostili- 
ties against  any  other  power  at  peace  with  such  neutral.  It  is 
therefore  one  of  the  laws  which  the  executive  government  of 
every  nation  is  bound  to  sec  obeyed  or  enforced,  just  as  much 
as  if  it  were  a  municipal  law,  enacted  by  its  peculiar  legisla- 
tive authority,  imposing  upon  the  executive  government  the 
duty  of  such  enforcement.  What  may  be  the  particular  pro- 
cesses for  doing  so,  may  be  more  or  less  dependent  upon  the 
form  of  government,  or  the  municipal  regulations,  of  such 
nation  ;  but  the  duty  exists,  whatever  the  former  may  be, 
and  whether  there  be  or  be  not  any  of  the  latter.  It  is 
peculiarly,  if  not  solely,  the  duty  of  the  executive  government 
to  see  to  the  enforcement  of  this  law,  because  it  it  is  a  law 
of  nations ;  the  fulfilment  of  which  duty  is  demanded  of  the 


108  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

nation  ivhich  that  government  represents,  and  cannot  be  made 
dependent,  like  duties  under  municipal  laws,  upon  the  action 
of  subordinate  officials  appointed  by  them  for  the  discharge  of 
those  duties. 

Such  was  the  sense  of  duty,  upon  this  subject,  entertained 
and  acted  upon  by  the  Executive  Government  of  the  United 
States,  under  the  administration  of  President  Washington, 
when,  before  the  existence  of  any  Enlistment  Act,  or  of  any 
municipal  regulations  which  could  be  invoked  in  its  aid,  it 
gave  orders  for  the  seizure  and  detention  of  vessels  under 
a  charge  of  intended  violation  of  our  neutral  obligations  to- 
wards England,  and  for  the  prosecution  of  the  guilty  parties. 
AVashington  and  his  noble  compatriots  in  the  ministry  did  not 
think  it  beneath  their  dignity,  nor  beyond  their  duty,  thus  to 
interpose  the  power  of  the  Government  in  protection  of  the 
good  faith  and  honor  of  the  nation  ;  nor  that  they  were  subject- 
ing her  to  humiliation  in  the  subsequent  procurement  of  more 
efficient  means  of  doing  so  by  the  enactment  of  an  Enlistment 
Act,  although  England  had  asked  it.  But  now,  after  the  lapse 
of  two  third  parts  of  a  century,  the  Executive  Ministry  of  Eng- 
land, in  cases  of  flagrant  and  atrocious  violations  of  this  law, 
already  committed  against  the  United  States,  and  in  many 
more,  notoriously  in  progress  within  her  realm,  when  attention 
is  called  to  them  by  the  ambassador  of  the  injured  power,  dis- 
dainfully disclaims  any  obligation  on  its  part  to  interfere,  or 
take  upon  itself  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  or  to  act  as  the 
magistrate  of  the  nation  ;  —  but  seeks  to  shelter  itself  under 
the  subterfuge,  that  the  only  means  for  prevention  or  redress 
are  in  the  application  of  one  of  her  municipal  regulations 
upon  the  subject ;  and  that  this  is  a  matter  with  which  they 
have  no  concern,  until  some  party  injured,  or  in  behalf  of  the 
United  States,  shall  previously  furnish  them  with  authentic 
proof,  in  due  form,  of  the  actual  violation  of  that  municipal  law, 
and  in  a  manner  exactly  within  its  peculiar  provisions,  to  be 
by  them  submitted  to  certain  sub-officials,  who  are  to  decide 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED   STATES.  109 

whether  or  not  any  interference  shall  take  place.  As  if  Eng- 
land's whole  obligation  were  founded,  not  on  the  laio  of  nations, 
but  on  this  particular  specimen  of  her  own  municipal  legisla- 
tion, and  would  be  fulfilled  by  a  compliance  with  its  provisions, 
however  inadequate  they  may  be  to  enforce  that  law,  or  how- 
ever impossible  they  may  make  such  enforcement ;  —  as  if  she 
were  under  no  duty  of  interference  for  the  protection  of  her 
honor  and  good  faith  voluntarily,  but  only  when  called  upon  by 
some  interested  party  invoking  such  interposition,  if  there 
happens  to  be  one  within  her  realm  of  ability  to  seek  it ;  —  thus 
leaving  outrages  upon  a  friendly  power  unprevented  and  un- 
punished, if  no  such  party  appear,  or,  if  appearing,  he  have  no 
means  of  procuring  the  evidence  ;  and,  to  crown  all,  when 
urged  for  the  amendment  of  this  municipal  law,  if  ineffectual 
for  the  preservation  of  the  nation's  faith  and  honor,  contemptu- 
ously replying,  that  England  does  not  change  her  laws  to  suit 
the  convenience  or  pleasure  of  other  nations,  —  as  if  it  were 
more  consistent  with  her  dignity  to  acquiesce  in  a  violation  of 
her  duty  to  them,  than  to  adopt  the  means  for  preventing  it 
upon  their  suggestion. 

Let  the  municipal  laws  of  England,  and  the  disposition  or 
ability  of  her  Government,  be  what  they  may,  the  fact  is 
before  the  whole  world,  written  upon  the  ocean  and  upon 
the  face  of  the  skies  in  the  lurid  flames  of  burning  ships 
and  cargoes,  that  —  in  a  great  struggle  between  a  long-estab- 
lished, legitimate,  and  free  government  (not  only  in  peaceful 
relations  with  her,  but  with  peculiar  claims  upon  her  friendship 
and  sympathy)  contending  for  life,  on  one  side  —  and  traitors 
and  rebels  seeking  its  overthrow,  on  the  other  —  that,  in  such 
a  struggle,  a  powerful  navy  of  vessels,  built  and  equipped  in 
her  ports,  armed  with  guns  and  munitions  of  war  manufac- 
tured by  her  artisans,  and  manned  by  crews  from  her  shores, 
all  united  on  her  soil  or  under  the  9Bgis  of  her  flag  on  the 
ocean,  and  never  having  been  within  a  rebel  port, —  an  Eng- 
lish navy  in  all  but  the  name  and  the  flag,  —  is  now  roving 


110  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS    OF 

the  seas,  burning  and  destroying  American  vessels  and  car- 
goes, in  defiance  of  the  established  law  of  nations,  and  not 
without  piracies  upon  her  own  subjects,  and  is  received 
everywhere  within  her  realm  with  friendly,  if  not  dis- 
tinguished, hospitality. 

To  attribute  this  monstrous  anomaly  to  impotence  on  the 
part  of  the  most  wealthy  and  most  powerful  naval  nation  on 
earth,  is  impossible  ;  nor  is  it  needful  to  seek  its  solution  in 
jealousy  or  hatred  on  the  part  of  the  Government,  or  in  a 
desire  to  break  down  an  anticipated  rival  in  commerce  and 
naval  power,  or  in  the  deficiency  of  her  municipal  regula- 
tions. It  is  enough  that  the  fact  exists,  to  prove  a  grievous 
wrong  to  the  United  States,  for  which  redress  ought  to 
be  made,  whether  the  fault  be  that  of  the  nation  or  of  its 
rulers. 

It  is  sad  to  believe,  that  nothing  is  to  be  hoped  for  from 
the  present  Ministry,  whose  disdainful  indifference  to  the 
claims  of  our  country,  if  not  their  settled  hostility  to  her, 
has,  from  the  first  breaking-out  of  the  Rebellion,  been  so 
conspicuously  manifested ;  but  the  civilized  world  is  already 
looking  upon  the  spectacle  with  indignation,  and  the  honest- 
hearted  English  people,  when  once  aroused  to  a  comprehen- 
sion of  the  truth,  will  behold  with  grief  and  shame  the  in- 
indelible  page  thus  written  in  their  country's  history. 

Fortunately,  the  question  of  England's  duty  in  this  matter, 
so  far  as  her  municipal  regulations  are  involved,  has  passed 
from  the  hands  of  her  Ministry,  for  the  present,  into  those  of 
her  judicial  tribunals,  upon  whose  independence,  and  sense 
of  justice,  we  have  been  accustomed  to  rely ;  and  nothing  can 
be  done  on  either  side  until  that  shall  have  been  decided.  If 
the  decision  shall  be,  that  the  American  interpretation  of  the 
statute  is  that  which  should  prevail,  and  the  "  Alexandra " 
shall  be  adjudged  forfeited,  all  future  danger  from  this  source 
will  cease  ;  and  the  only  remaining  question  will  be  that  of  the 
indemnity  to  be  made  for  the  injuries  already  perpetrated, 


ENGLAND    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  Ill 

which  is  purely  a  diplomatic,  and  cannot  be  made  a  judicial 
question.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  shall  be  decided,  that  the 
interpretation  already  put  upon  that  statute  by  the  inferior 
tribunal  is  to  be  sustained,  and  we  are  consequently  to  be 
left  to  a  continuance  of  these  depredations,  and  a  reliance  only 
upon  our  own  means  of  self-defence,  then  will  arise  the  grave 
inquiry,  what  measures  the  honor,  the  interests,  and  tlio  duty 
of  the  United  States,  as  a  member  of  tlie  family  of  nations, 
will  require  to  be  adopted. 

As  before  stated,  the  injuries  already  suffered,  and  a  con- 
tinued exposure  to  the  repetition  of  them,  would  justify  a 
declaration  of  war  against  England  ;  both  because  of  her  vio- 
lation of  the  law  of  nations  and  of  her  good  faith  toward 
the  United  States,  under  our  construction  of  them  (upon 
which  construction  it  is  equally  our  right  and  our  duty  to 
insist)  ;  and  because  of  the  necessity  of  protecting  ourselves 
against  such  ruinous  depredations,  even  if  England  were 
innocent  of  any  wrong  in  thus  furnishing  our  enemy  with 
the  means  for  our  destruction;  —  and  the  whole  world  would 
doubtless  sanction  such  a  declaration. 

But,  inasmuch  as  England  will  have  assumed  the  position, 
that  she  is  guilty  of  no  such  violation  of  the  law  of  nations 
or  of  her  duty  towards  tlie  United  States,  and  will  claim  that 
she,  too,  is  acting  in  conformity  to  both  under  her  construc- 
tion of  them,  and  with  equal  right  to  such  construction,  the 
point  of  honor  is  saved,  and  there  will  be  no  necessity  of  a 
war  to  vindicate  the  dignity  or  honor  of  the  United  States 
from  any  avowedly  intended  wrong  or  insult ;  the  existence 
of  which  would,  of  course,  render  war  inevitable,  there  being 
no  other  alternative  but  national  degradation,  —  never  for  an 
instant  to  be  tolerated. 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  the  final  adjustment  may  without 
dishonor  be  left  to  negotiation,  and  the  logic  of  events,  often 
so  much  more  effective  than  diplomatic  discussion  ;  the 
United  States,  in  the  mean  time,  taking  measures  to    place 


112  NEUTRAL   RELATIONS    OF 

herself  upon  an  equal  footing  with  England  in  reference  to 
neutral  rights  and  obligations.  And  this  might  be  done  by 
the  repeal  of  our  Foreign  Enlistment  Act,  so  far  as  the  neu- 
tral relations  of  England  and  the  United  States,  or  English 
subjects  or  property,  may  be  concerned,  on  the  ground  that 
her  construction  of  her  own  statute  renders  it  as  substantially 
nugatory  as  any  repeal  could  do.  Or,  if  this  might  be  con- 
sidered an  offensive  discrimination,  the  end  might  be  attained 
by  some  enactment  securing  towards  England  and  English 
subjects  and  property  the  same  construction  of  our  statute 
as  she  adopts  of  her  own,  and  by  giving  notice  to  her,  that 
such  enactment  is  in  no  hostile  spirit,  but  solely  for  the  pur- 
pose of  self-defence  (to  remove  the  ruinous  inequality  at 
present  subsisting  in  the  construction  of  the  respective  muni- 
cipal enactments  of  the  two  countries,  by  which  inequality 
effectual  security  is  given  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
against  infraction  of  this  nation's  neutral  rights  to  the  injury  of 
England,  while  England  gives  none  such  in  return),  and  that 
the  enactment  will  be  rescinded,  whenever  she  shall  so  amend 
her  own  Act,  or  enable  her  courts  to  give  to  it  such  construc- 
tion, as  shall  protect  the  interests  of  the  United  States  to  the 
same  extent  to  which  those  of  England  are  now  protected  by 
tliis  nation,  —  and  when,  also,  indemnity  shall  have  been  pro- 
vided for  the  losses  sustained  by  American  citizens  by  reason 
of  depredations  committed  by  rebel  ships  of  war,  or  privateers, 
which  have  been  equipped,  fitted  out,  or  armed  in  England,  or 
under  the  English  flag,  in  violation  of  the  neutrality  which  it 
was  incumbent  upon  her  to  observe  and  enforce  during  the 
present  war. 

No  nation  on  earth  has  at  present  a  greater  interest  at 
stake  in  the  safety  of  commerce  upon  the  seas  than  England, 
or  greater  reason  to  desire,  that,  in  case  of  war  between  hei 
and  any  other  nation,  the  rights  and  obligations  of  neutrality, 
on  the  part  of  those  not  in  the  conflict,  should  be  rigidly 
protected  and  observed  ;   and  she  could  anticipate  no  such 


ENGLAND    AND   THE   UNITED    STATES.  113 

danger  from  the  failure  to  observe  them  on  the  part  of  any 
other  nation  as  from  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  whose  capacity  and  opportunities  for  supplying  pri- 
vateers, and  ships  of  war,  to  her  enemy,  would  exceed 
those  of  any  other  nation,  if  not  of  all  others  combined.  The 
adoption  of  the  principles  and  practice  of  the  United  States 
upon  this  subject,  and  the  very  few  millions  of  pounds 
sterling  which  it  would  require  for  the  indemnity  suggested, 
would  be  a  very  cheap  price  at  which  to  obtain  the  perma- 
nent security  which  such  an  adjustment  of  this  difficulty 
would  give.  Hundreds  of  millions  would  not  compensate  for 
the  losses  which  will,  in  all  probability,  accrue  to  England 
in  her  future  wars,  if  the  United  States  are  left  free  to  act 
towards  her,  without  reproach,  upon  the  principles,  and  in 
imitation  of  the  practice,  hitherto  adopted  and  acted  upon  by 
her  in  this  Rebellion. 

But  in  the  present  condition  of  naval  warfare  and  enter- 
prise, caused  by  the  introduction  of  steam,  enabling  two  or 
three  armed  steamships  more  effectually  to  depredate  upon  the 
commerce  of  a  nation,  than  large  fleets  of  sailing  vessels  of  the 
old  fashion  could  have  done,  even  a  consentaneous  construc- 
tion of  the  present  English  and  American  Enlistment  Acts,  as 
adopted  in  the  United  States,  would  fall  very  far  short  of  the 
means  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  two  nations  from 
the  danger  of  war  between  them,  whenever,  one  being  at  peace 
and  the  other  at  war,  the  latter  should  suffer  injuries  from  the 
alleged  neglect  or  violation  of  the  neutral  duties  of  the  for- 
mer. A  more  stringent  limitation  of  the  right  or  opportunities 
of  neutral  nations  to  furnish  ships  of  war  to  belligerents,  than 
the  law  of  nations  or  the  Enlistment  Acts  now  provide,  is 
demanded  by  the  increased  commerce  of  the  world,  —  in  order 
that  such  nations  may  be  better  secured  from  the  danger  of 
wars  with  belligerents,  which  may  be  caused  by  evasions  or 
violations  of  their  neutral  rights,  —  and  in  order  that  bellige- 
rents may  be  better  secured  from  the  machinations,  connivance, 

15 


I 


114'  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS    OF 

or  want  of  vigilance,  by  means  of  which  a  neutral,  under  pre- 
tence of  impartiality,  may  be  made  a  substantial  ally  of  one, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  other. 

Such  a  change  iii  the  present  system  can  only  be  effected  by 
a  treaty  between  England  and  the  United  States,  or  by  a  de- 
claration of  the  character  of  that  of  Paris,  in  effect  establishing 
a  new  law  of  nations  in  relation  to  neutrality,  to  be  binding 
upon  all  the  powers  who  shall  assent  to  it. 

Without  presuming  to  enumerate  the  exact  extent  or  nature 
of  the  proposed  arrangement,  or  the  precise  method  of  secur- 
ing a  faithful  observance  of  it  (all  which  might  be  readily 
devised  by  those  familiar  with  maritime  affairs),  it  may  suffice 
here  to  suggest,  that  the  basis  might  be  a  prohibition  upon 
any  neutral  nation  to  build  or  equip  ships  of  war,  or  vessels 
which  may  be  converted  into  ships  of  war,  for,  or  to  sell  them 
to,  any  other  power,  or  the  subjects  of  any,  at  war  with  any 
power  with  which  such  neutral  shall  be  at  peace,  —  with  such 
provisions  for  inspection  by  regular  officers,  and  for  bonds, 
&c.,  as  might  be  necessary  to  prevent  any  undue  interference 
with  the  right  to  construct  vessels  really  intended  for  peace- 
ful service,  but  convertible  into  ships  of  war,  —  provisions 
which  might  be  needful  to  prevent  the  prohibition  from  inter- 
fering with  honest  mercantile  transactions,  while  protecting 
neutral  rights,  and  preserving  fidelity  to  neutral  obligations. 

It  is  believed  that  the  loss,  if  any,  which  any  commercial 
nation  could  be  put  to  by  such  restriction  of  this  one  branch 
of  her  manufacturing  interests,  would  be  compensated  for,  a 
thousand-fold,  in  her  preservation  from  entanglements  in  wars 
between  other  nations ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  an  advance 
would  be  made  in  the  dignity  and  protecting  character  of  the 
law  of  nations. 

It  is  indeed  one  of  the  marvels  of  these  times,  that  the 
cupidity  of  two  or  three  ship-builders  in  England,  ready  to 
sacrifice  the  faith  and  honor  of  their  country  for  their  personal 
gain,  has  been  sufficient,  under  the  present  system,  to  bring 


ENGLAND   AND   THE   UNITED   STATES.  115 

two  great  nations,  who  ought  to  be  the  most  strongly  united  of 
any  on  earth,  to  the  very  verge  of  war. 

The  principal  cause  of  the  present  unfortunate  relations 
between  England  and  the  United  States,  next  to  the  hostility, 
and  desire  for  our  destruction  as  a  nation,  pervading  her  land- 
holding  and  commercial  classes,  is  the  settled  belief,  with  which 
they  have  succeeded  in  inspiring  the  minds  of  the  people  at 
large,  that  the  dismemberment  of  our  Government  is  inevita- 
ble ;  —  a  foregone  conclusion  which  has  been  too  readily  and 
generally  adopted,  and  which  renders  them  comparatively 
indifferent  to  the  conduct  of  their  own  Government,  in  the 
confidence  that  such  dismemberment  will  soon  terminate  all 
difficulties,  or  leave  us  in  no  condition  to  resent  any  wrongs 
inflicted  upon  us. 

But  the  English  people  will  soon  awaken  from  this  delusive 
dream,  and  realize  the  true  character  of  this  war  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States,  as  one  into  which  they  were  driven  origi- 
nally in  defence  only  of  constitutional  law  and  of  national 
life,  against  a  treason  which  for  atrocity  has  no  parallel  in  his- 
tory, but  which,  in  the  providence  of  God,  has  become  a  war 
now  also  against  an  infernal  institution,  founded  upon  the  most 
cruel  wrong  and  injustice  to  one  race,  and  productive  of  none 
but  the  most  pernicious  and  demoralizing  influences  upon  the 
other;  —  a  war,  in  short,  for  constitutional  law  and  liberty 
against  despotism  and  slavery,  and  one  for  the  success  of  which 
every  intelligent  and  true-hearted  Englishman  must  pray. 
Then  will  they  realize,  also,  the  false  position  in  which  her 
rulers,  and  those  whose  iiifluences  have  guided  her  counsels, 
have  placed  their  own  noble  country,  —  a  position  alike  false 
to  her  traditions  as  the  champion  of  constitutional  law  and 
liberty,  false  to  her  honor  and  her  faith  as  a  neutral  nation, 
and  false,  too,  to  any  just  conception  even  of  her  material  in- 
terests. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  have  no  fears  nor  doubts 
about  the  result.     Calm  in  the  confidence  of  their  ability  to 


116  NEUTRAL    RELATIONS. 

suppress  this  Rebellion,  resolute  in  their  determination  to  do 
it,  and  assured  of  the  support  and  guidance  of  the  Great 
Ruler  of  nations  in  their  cause,  they  will  fearlessly  go  forward, 
come  what  may,  and  cost  what  it  may,  to  the  accomplishment 
of  this,  as  the  highest  and  noblest  duty  which  God  in  mani- 
fest providence  ever  imposed  upon  a  nation. 

25  September,  1863. 


CENTRAL  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
University  of  California,  San  Diego 

DATE  DUE 


UEC  04  19/b 

M2V  2^  mt 

CEC17  1980 

DEC  0  4  1980 

JUN  1 3  ^^^'^ 

A?RlliaS8 

'I'i'J  18  1968 

-  jii  ti  8  19  8 

CI  39 

UCSD  Libr. 

